Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21824381›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2011

Computerized clinical decision support systems for primary preventive care: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes.

Nathan M Souza, Rolf J Sebaldt, Jean A Mackay, Jeanette C Prorok, Lorraine Weise-Kelly, Tamara Navarro, Nancy L Wilczynski, R Brian Haynes, CCDSS Systematic Review Team

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
23.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 189 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Computer decision support systems for asthma: a systematic review.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2014
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nathan M SouzaHealth Research Methodology Program, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Rolf J Sebaldt
Jean A Mackay
Jeanette C Prorok
Lorraine Weise-Kelly
Tamara Navarro
Nancy L Wilczynski
R Brian Haynes
CCDSS Systematic Review Team
McMaster University · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research KRS 91791
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are claimed to improve processes and outcomes of primary preventive care (PPC), but their effects, safety, and acceptance must be confirmed. We updated our previous systematic reviews of CCDSSs and integrated a knowledge translation approach in the process. The objective was to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CCDSSs for PPC on process of care, patient outcomes, harms, and costs.

methodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews Database, Inspec, and other databases, as well as reference lists through January 2010. We contacted authors to confirm data or provide additional information. We included RCTs that assessed the effect of a CCDSS for PPC on process of care and patient outcomes compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.

resultsWe added 17 new RCTs to our 2005 review for a total of 41 studies. RCT quality improved over time. CCDSSs improved process of care in 25 of 40 (63%) RCTs. Cumulative scientifically strong evidence supports the effectiveness of CCDSSs for screening and management of dyslipidaemia in primary care. There is mixed evidence for effectiveness in screening for cancer and mental health conditions, multiple preventive care activities, vaccination, and other preventive care interventions. Fourteen (34%) trials assessed patient outcomes, and four (29%) reported improvements with the CCDSS. Most trials were not powered to evaluate patient-important outcomes. CCDSS costs and adverse events were reported in only six (15%) and two (5%) trials, respectively. Information on study duration was often missing, limiting our ability to assess sustainability of CCDSS effects.

conclusionsEvidence supports the effectiveness of CCDSSs for screening and treatment of dyslipidaemia in primary care with less consistent evidence for CCDSSs used in screening for cancer and mental health-related conditions, vaccinations, and other preventive care. CCDSS effects on patient outcomes, safety, costs of care, and provider satisfaction remain poorly supported.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCooperative BehaviorDyslipidemiasEarly Detection of CancerHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMental DisordersPreventive MedicinePrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID21824381
PMCPMC3173370
OpenAlexW1996771848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.