Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21824385›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2011

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

Navdeep Sahota, Rob Lloyd, Anita Ramakrishna, Jean A Mackay, Jeanette C Prorok, Lorraine Weise-Kelly, Tamara Navarro, Nancy L Wilczynski, R Brian Haynes, CCDSS Systematic Review Team

Registry-linked trialAbstract 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. It is linked to trial NCT03012919 (Evaluation of an Active Decision Support System for Hemodynamic Optimization During High Risk Vascular Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 59 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03012919 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of an Active Decision Support System for Hemodynamic Optimization During High Risk Vascular Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorMedical University of ViennaRan2015 to 2016Enrolled31ConditionsFeasibility, Active Decision Support System, Goal Directed TherapyArmsactive decision support system
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Computer decision support systems for asthma: a systematic review.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2014
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. The use of machine learning to predict pharmacological therapy in gestational diabetes: A scoping review.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Clinical Informatics in Critical Care Medicine.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. An Innovative Framework for Sustainable Development in Healthcare: The Human Rights Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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.

Navdeep SahotaCollege of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, 107 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Rob Lloyd
Anita Ramakrishna
Jean A Mackay
Jeanette C Prorok
Lorraine Weise-Kelly
Tamara Navarro
Nancy L Wilczynski
R Brian Haynes
CCDSS Systematic Review Team

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundAcute medical care often demands timely, accurate decisions in complex situations. Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) have many features that could help. However, as for any medical intervention, claims that CCDSSs improve care processes and patient outcomes need to be rigorously assessed. The objective of this review was to systematically review the effects of CCDSSs on process of care and patient outcomes for acute medical care.

methodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, ACP Journal Club, and others), and the Inspec bibliographic database were searched to January 2010, in all languages, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CCDSSs in all clinical areas. We included RCTs that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS used for acute medical care compared with 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.

resultsThirty-six studies met our inclusion criteria for acute medical care. The CCDSS improved process of care in 63% (22/35) of studies, including 64% (9/14) of medication dosing assistants, 82% (9/11) of management assistants using alerts/reminders, 38% (3/8) of management assistants using guidelines/algorithms, and 67% (2/3) of diagnostic assistants. Twenty studies evaluated patient outcomes, of which three (15%) reported improvements, all of which were medication dosing assistants.

conclusionThe majority of CCDSSs demonstrated improvements in process of care, but patient outcomes were less likely to be evaluated and far less likely to show positive results.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCooperative BehaviorDecision Support Systems, ClinicalPatient CareAcute DiseaseAlgorithmsDecision MakingHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID21824385
PMCPMC3169487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.