Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22407585›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2012

Changing clinical practice through patient specific reminders available at the time of the clinical encounter: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tim A Holt, Margaret Thorogood, Frances Griffiths

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Evidence-Based Development of an Intervention to Improve Clinical Health Literacy Practice.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  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

3 authors.

Tim A HoltDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, 2nd floor, 23-38 Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford, OX1 2ET, UK. tim.holt@phc.ox.ac.uk
Margaret Thorogood
Frances Griffiths

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo synthesise current evidence for the influence on clinical behaviour of patient-specific electronically generated reminders available at the time of the clinical encounter. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane library of systematic reviews; Science Citation Index Expanded; Social Sciences Citation Index; ASSIA; EMBASE; CINAHL; DARE; HMIC were searched for relevant articles. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND

interventionsWe included controlled trials of reminder interventions if the intervention was: directed at clinician behaviour; available during the clinical encounter; computer generated (including computer generated paper-based reminders); and generated by patient-specific (rather than condition specific or drug specific) data. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials published since 1970. A random effects model was used to derive a pooled odds ratio for adherence to recommended care or achievement of target outcome. Subgroups were examined based on area of care and study design. Odds ratios were derived for each sub-group. We examined the designs, settings and other features of reminders looking for factors associated with a consistent effect.

resultsAltogether, 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. The studies were of variable quality and some were affected by unit of analysis errors due to a failure to account for clustering. An overall odds ratio of 1.79 [95% confidence interval 1.56, 2.05] in favour of reminders was derived. Heterogeneity was high and factors predicting effect size were difficult to identify. LIMITATIONS: Methodological diversity added to statistical heterogeneity as an obstacle to meta-analysis. The quality of included studies was variable and in some reports procedural details were lacking. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY

findingsThe analysis suggests a moderate effect of electronically generated, individually tailored reminders on clinician behaviour during the clinical encounter. Future research should concentrate on identifying the features of reminder interventions most likely to result in the target behaviour.

Indexed as

Reminder SystemsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTherapy, Computer-AssistedTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID22407585
PMCPMC3403145

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.