Trial reportJournal of medical systems2016
Efficiency of Clinical Decision Support Systems Improves with Experience.
Trial report in Journal of medical systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03724539 (Optimizing PharmacoTherapy In the Multimorbid Elderly in Primary CAre), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 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.
Optimizing PharmacoTherapy In the Multimorbid Elderly in Primary CAre: a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (the OPTICA Trial)
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Optimising prescribing in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care (OPTICA): cluster randomised clinical trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Trial
- Clinical decision support systems for polypharmacy optimization in older patients: a narrative review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Review
- A mixed methods analysis of the medication review intervention centered around the use of the 'Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing' Assistant (STRIPA) in Swiss primary care practices.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Improving Appropriate Prescribing For Geriatric Patients Using a Clinical Decision Support System.Innovations in pharmacy · 2022Article
- Intention to use Medical Apps Among Older Adults in the Netherlands: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Implementation fidelity of a clinical medication review intervention: process evaluation.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
- A six-year repeated evaluation of computerized clinical decision support system user acceptability.International journal of medical informatics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Efficiency, or the resources spent while performing a specific task, is widely regarded as one the determinants of usability. In this study, the authors hypothesize that having a group of users perform a similar task over a prolonged period of time will lead to improvements in efficiency of that task. This study was performed in the domain of decision-supported medication reviews. Data was gathered during a randomized controlled trial. Three expert teams consisting of an independent physician and an independent pharmacist conducted 150 computerized medication reviews on patients in 13 general practices located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Results were analyzed with a linear mixed model. A fixed effects test on the linear mixed model showed a significant difference in the time required to conduct medication reviews over time; F(31.145) = 14.043, p < .001. The average time in minutes required to conduct medication reviews up to the first quartile was M = 20.42 (SD = 9.00), while the time from the third quartile up was M = 9.81 (SD = 6.13). This leads the authors to conclude that the amount of time users needed to perform similar tasks decreased significantly as they gained experience over time.
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.