Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22898173›Full record

ReviewSystematic reviews2012

Overview of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of reminders in improving healthcare professional behavior.

Amy Cheung, Michelle Weir, Alain Mayhew, Nicole Kozloff, Kaitlyn Brown, Jeremy Grimshaw

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. A systematic review of the implementation and impact of asthma protocols.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2014
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Impact of Complex Quality-Interventions on Patient Outcome: A Systematic Overview of Systematic Reviews.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

6 authors.

Amy CheungDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, 33 Russell St,, 3rd Floor Tower, Toronto, ON, Canada. Dramy.cheung@gmail.com
Michelle Weir
Alain Mayhew
Nicole Kozloff
Kaitlyn Brown
Jeremy Grimshaw

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelled

objectiveThe purpose of this project was to conduct an overview of existing systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of reminders in changing professional behavior in clinical settings. MATERIALS AND

methodsRelevant systematic reviews of reminder interventions were identified through searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE and the Cochrane Library in conjunction with a larger project examining professional behavioral change interventions. Reviews were appraised using AMSTAR, a validated tool for assessing the quality of systematic reviews. As most reviews only reported vote counting, conclusions about effectiveness for each review were based on a count of positive studies. If available, we also report effect sizes. Conclusions were based on the findings from higher quality and current systematic reviews.

resultsThirty-five reviews were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Ten reviews examined the effectiveness of reminders generally, 5 reviews focused on specific health care settings, 14 reviews concentrated on specific behaviors and 6 reviews addressed specific patient populations. The quality of the reviews was variable (median = 3, range = 1 to 8). Seven reviews had AMSTAR scores >5 and were considered in detail. Five of these seven reviews demonstrated positive effects of reminders in changing provider behavior. Few reviews used quantitative pooling methods; in one high quality and current review, the overall observed effects were moderate with an absolute median improvement in performance of 4.2% (IQR: 0.5% to 6.6%). DISCUSSION: The results support that modest improvements can occur with the use of reminders. The effect size is consistent with other interventions that have been used to improve professional behavior.

conclusionReminders appear effective in improving different clinical behaviors across a range of settings.

Indexed as

Professional PracticeReminder SystemsHealth PersonnelHumans

Identifiers

PMID22898173
PMCPMC3503870

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.