Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21890873›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Comparison of a basic and an advanced pharmacotherapy-related clinical decision support system in a hospital care setting in the Netherlands.

Willemijn L Eppenga, Hieronymus J Derijks, Jean M H Conemans, Walter A J J Hermens, Michel Wensing, Peter A G M De Smet

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Combining text mining with clinical decision support in clinical practice: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Observational
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

6 authors.

Willemijn L EppengaIQ healthcare, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. w.eppenga@iq.umcn.nl
Hieronymus J Derijks
Jean M H Conemans
Walter A J J Hermens
Michel Wensing
Peter A G M De Smet

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledOBJECTIVE To compare the clinical relevance of medication alerts in a basic and in an advanced clinical decision support system (CDSS).

designA prospective observational study. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe collected 4023 medication orders in a hospital for independent evaluation in two pharmacotherapy-related decision support systems. Only the more advanced system considered patient characteristics and laboratory test results in its algorithms. Two pharmacists assessed the clinical relevance of the medication alerts produced. The alert was considered relevant if the pharmacist would undertake action (eg, contact the physician or the nurse). The primary analysis concerned the positive predictive value (PPV) for clinically relevant medication alerts in both systems.

resultsThe PPV was significantly higher in the advanced system (5.8% vs 17.0%; p<0.05). Significant differences were found in the alert categories: drug-(drug) interaction (9.9% vs 14.8%; p<0.05), drug-age interaction (2.9% vs 73.3%; p<0.05), and dosing guidance (5.6% vs 16.9%; p<0.05). Including laboratory values and other patient characteristics resulted in a significantly higher PPV for the advanced CDSS compared to the basic medication alerts (12.2% vs 23.3%; p<0.05).

conclusionThe advanced CDSS produced a higher proportion of clinically relevant medication alerts, but the number of irrelevant alerts remained high. To improve the PPV of the advanced CDSS, the algorithms should be optimized by identifying additional risk modifiers and more data should be made electronically available to improve the performance of the algorithms. Our study illustrates and corroborates the need for cyclic testing of technical improvements in information technology in circumstances representative of daily clinical practice.

Indexed as

Clinical Pharmacy Information SystemsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalMedical Order Entry SystemsMedication Systems, HospitalHumansNetherlandsObservationPharmacy Service, HospitalProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID21890873
PMCPMC3240762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.