ReviewYearbook of medical informatics2014
A 2014 medical informatics perspective on clinical decision support systems: do we hit the ceiling of effectiveness?
Review in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A consensus statement on the use of digital twins in medicine.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Coordinated use of Health Level 7 standards to support clinical decision support: Case study with shared decision making and drug-drug interactions.International journal of medical informatics · 2022Article
- Health information technology in oncology practice: a literature review.Cancer informatics · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo summarize recent research and propose a selection of best papers published in 2013 in the field of computer-based decision support in health care.
methodTwo literature reviews were performed by the two section editors from bibliographic databases with a focus on clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and computer provider order entry in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be peer-reviewed by external reviewers.
resultsThe full review process highlighted three papers, illustrating current trends in the domain of clinical decision support. The first trend is the development of theoretical approaches for CDSSs, and is exemplified by a paper proposing the integration of family histories and pedigrees in a CDSS. The second trend is illustrated by well-designed CDSSs, showing good theoretical performances and acceptance, while failing to show a clinical impact. An example is given with a paper reporting on scorecards aiming to reduce adverse drug events. The third trend is represented by research works that try to understand the limits of CDSS use, for instance by analyzing interactions between general practitioners, patients, and a CDSS.
conclusionsCDSSs can achieve good theoretical results in terms of sensibility and specificity, as well as a good acceptance, but evaluations often fail to demonstrate a clinical impact. Future research is needed to better understand the causes of this observation and imagine new effective solutions for CDSS implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.