ArticleYearbook of medical informatics2016
Computerized Clinical Decision Support: Contributions from 2015.
Article in Yearbook of medical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Contributions from the 2016 Literature on Clinical Decision Support.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2017Review
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 select the best papers published in 2015 in the field of computerized clinical decision support for the Decision Support section of the IMIA yearbook.
methodA literature review was performed by searching two bibliographic databases for papers related to clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems. The aim was to identify a list of candidate best papers from the retrieved papers that were then peer-reviewed by external reviewers. A consensus meeting between the two section editors and the IMIA editorial team was finally conducted to conclude in the best paper selection.
resultsAmong the 974 retrieved papers, the entire review process resulted in the selection of four best papers. One paper reports on a CDSS routinely applied in pediatrics for more than 10 years, relying on adaptations of the Arden Syntax. Another paper assessed the acceptability and feasibility of an important CPOE evaluation tool in hospitals outside the US where it was developed. The third paper is a systematic, qualitative review, concerning usability flaws of medication-related alerting functions, providing an important evidence-based, methodological contribution in the domain of CDSS design and development in general. Lastly, the fourth paper describes a study quantifying the effect of a complex, continuous-care, guideline-based CDSS on the correctness and completeness of clinicians' decisions.
conclusionsWhile there are notable examples of routinely used decision support systems, this 2015 review on CDSSs and CPOE systems still shows that, despite methodological contributions, theoretical frameworks, and prototype developments, these technologies are not yet widely spread (at least with their full functionalities) in routine clinical practice. Further research, testing, evaluation, and training are still needed for these tools to be adopted in clinical practice and, ultimately, illustrate the benefits that they promise.
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.