Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24083548›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2013

On the alert: future priorities for alerts in clinical decision support for computerized physician order entry identified from a European workshop.

Jamie J Coleman, Heleen van der Sijs, Walter E Haefeli, Sarah P Slight, Sarah E McDowell, Hanna M Seidling, Birgit Eiermann, Jos Aarts, Elske Ammenwerth, Ann Slee and 3 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
18.2field-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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
    Ferner, Robin E [corrected to Slee, Ann]; Slee, Ann [corrected to Ferner, Robin E]
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 10 institutions in 6 countries.

Jamie J ColemanUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Mindelsohn Way, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2WB UK. j.j.coleman@bham.ac.uk.
Heleen van der Sijs
Walter E Haefeli
Sarah P Slight
Sarah E McDowell
Hanna M Seidling
Birgit Eiermann
Jos Aarts
Elske Ammenwerth
Ann Slee
Robin E Ferner
Robin E Ferner
Ann Slee
Heidelberg University · DEBirmingham City Hospital · GBErasmus MC · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NLHarvard University · USKarolinska Institutet · SEQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GBUMIT - Private Universität für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Medizinische Informatik und Technik · ATUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1209-10099
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical decision support (CDS) for electronic prescribing systems (computerized physician order entry) should help prescribers in the safe and rational use of medicines. However, the best ways to alert users to unsafe or irrational prescribing are uncertain. Specifically, CDS systems may generate too many alerts, producing unwelcome distractions for prescribers, or too few alerts running the risk of overlooking possible harms. Obtaining the right balance of alerting to adequately improve patient safety should be a priority.

methodsA workshop funded through the European Regional Development Fund was convened by the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust to assess current knowledge on alerts in CDS and to reach a consensus on a future research agenda on this topic. Leading European researchers in CDS and alerts in electronic prescribing systems were invited to the workshop.

resultsWe identified important knowledge gaps and suggest research priorities including (1) the need to determine the optimal sensitivity and specificity of alerts; (2) whether adaptation to the environment or characteristics of the user may improve alerts; and (3) whether modifying the timing and number of alerts will lead to improvements. We have also discussed the challenges and benefits of using naturalistic or experimental studies in the evaluation of alerts and suggested appropriate outcome measures.

conclusionsWe have identified critical problems in CDS, which should help to guide priorities in research to evaluate alerts. It is hoped that this will spark the next generation of novel research from which practical steps can be taken to implement changes to CDS systems that will ultimately reduce alert fatigue and improve the design of future systems.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalElectronic PrescribingEuropeHumansMedical Order Entry SystemsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID24083548
PMCPMC3850158
OpenAlexW2164590486

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.