Approaches to evaluating electronic prescribing.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Electronic prescribing: introducing a stat optional dose to improve time to antibiotic on the acute medical unit.BMJ open quality · 2018
   Article
2. Perceptions and experiences of the implementation, management, use and optimisation of electronic prescribing systems in hospital settings: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies.BMJ open · 2016
   Article
3. Electronic prescribing: Reducing delay to first dose of antibiotics for patients in intensive care.BMJ quality improvement reports · 2014
   Article
4. Potential value of electronic prescribing in health economic and outcomes research.Patient related outcome measures · 2010
   Article
5. Methodologic issues in health informatics trials: the complexities of complex interventions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as