Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27977697›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

The Effects of Clinical Decision Support Systems on Medication Safety: An Overview.

Pengli Jia, Longhao Zhang, Jingjing Chen, Pujing Zhao, Mingming Zhang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 11 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. Reducing medication errors for adults in hospital settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Pseudocode Generation from Clinical Protocol Flowchart using Large Vision-Language Models.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2026
    Article
  19. Observational
  20. Review

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Pengli JiaChinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, PR, China.
Longhao ZhangChinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, PR, China.
Jingjing ChenDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, PR, China.
Pujing ZhaoChinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, PR, China.
Mingming ZhangChinese Evidence-based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, PR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe clinical decision support system(CDSS) has potential to improving medication safety. However, the effects of the intervention were conflicting and uncertain. Meanwhile, the reporting and methodological quality of this field were unknown.

objectiveThe aim of this overview is to evaluate the effects of CDSS on medication safety and to examine the methodological and reporting quality.

methodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to August 2015. Systematic reviews (SRs) investigating the effects of CDSS on medication safety were included. Outcomes were determined in advance and assessed separately for process of care and patient outcomes. The methodological quality was assessed by Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the reporting quality was examined by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

resultsTwenty systematic reviews, consisting of 237 unique randomized controlled trials(RCTs) and 176 non-RCTs were included. Evidence that CDSS significantly impacted process of care was found in 108 out of 143 unique studies of the 16 SRs examining this effect (75%). Only 18 out of 90 unique studies of the 13 SRs reported significantly evidence that CDSS positively impacted patient outcomes (20%). Ratings for the overall scores of AMSTAR resulted in a mean score of 8.3 with a range of scores from 7.5 to 10.5. The reporting quality was varied. Some contents were particularly strong. However, some contents were poor.

conclusionsCDSS reduces medication error by obviously improving process of care and inconsistently improving patient outcomes. Larger samples and longer-term studies are required to ensure more reliable evidence base on the effects of CDSS on patient outcomes. The methodological and reporting quality were varied and some realms need to be improved.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansMedication ErrorsMedication SystemsPatient Safety

Identifiers

PMID27977697
PMCPMC5157990

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.