Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21824382›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2011

Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve practitioners' diagnostic test ordering behavior? A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review.

Pavel S Roshanov, John J You, Jasmine Dhaliwal, David Koff, Jean A Mackay, 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 52 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
17.7field-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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Computer decision support systems for asthma: a systematic review.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2014
    Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Partner-developed electronic health record tools to facilitate social risk-informed care planning.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pavel S RoshanovHealth Research Methodology Program, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
John J You
Jasmine Dhaliwal
David Koff
Jean A Mackay
Lorraine Weise-Kelly
Tamara Navarro
Nancy L Wilczynski
R Brian Haynes
CCDSS Systematic Review Team
McMaster University · CAHamilton Health Sciences · CAUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundUnderuse and overuse of diagnostic tests have important implications for health outcomes and costs. Decision support technology purports to optimize the use of diagnostic tests in clinical practice. The objective of this review was to assess whether computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are effective at improving ordering of tests for diagnosis, monitoring of disease, or monitoring of treatment. The outcome of interest was effect on the diagnostic test-ordering behavior of practitioners.

methodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews database, Inspec, and reference lists for eligible articles published up to January 2010. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the use of CCDSSs to usual practice or non-CCDSS controls in clinical care settings. Trials were eligible if at least one component of the CCDSS gave suggestions for ordering or performing a diagnostic procedure. We considered studies 'positive' if they showed a statistically significant improvement in at least 50% of test ordering outcomes.

resultsThirty-five studies were identified, with significantly higher methodological quality in those published after the year 2000 (p = 0.002). Thirty-three trials reported evaluable data on diagnostic test ordering, and 55% (18/33) of CCDSSs improved testing behavior overall, including 83% (5/6) for diagnosis, 63% (5/8) for treatment monitoring, 35% (6/17) for disease monitoring, and 100% (3/3) for other purposes. Four of the systems explicitly attempted to reduce test ordering rates and all succeeded. Factors of particular interest to decision makers include costs, user satisfaction, and impact on workflow but were rarely investigated or reported.

conclusionsSome CCDSSs can modify practitioner test-ordering behavior. To better inform development and implementation efforts, studies should describe in more detail potentially important factors such as system design, user interface, local context, implementation strategy, and evaluate impact on user satisfaction and workflow, costs, and unintended consequences.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorDecision Support Systems, ClinicalConsumer BehaviorDecision MakingDiagnostic Tests, RoutineGlobal HealthHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicPractice Patterns, Physicians'United States

Identifiers

PMID21824382
PMCPMC3174115
OpenAlexW2137225234

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.