ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2018
Decision Support for Diabetes in Scotland: Implementation and Evaluation of a Clinical Decision Support System.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Designing Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS)-A User-Centered Lens of the Design Characteristics, Challenges, and Implications: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Design, effectiveness, and economic outcomes of contemporary chronic disease clinical decision support systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Benefits of Clinical Decision Support Systems for the Management of Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases: Targeted Literature Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Review
- Diabetes and artificial intelligence beyond the closed loop: a review of the landscape, promise and challenges.Diabetologia · 2024Review
- The Application of Knowledge-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems to Enhance Adherence to Evidence-Based Medicine in Chronic Disease.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2023Review
- [Ontologies Applied in Clinical Decision Support Systems for Diabetes].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2023Review
- [Chronic kidney disease in community: Current state for screening and management].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2022Article
- Barriers and enablers to implementing and using clinical decision support systems for chronic diseases: a qualitative systematic review and meta-aggregation.Implementation science communications · 2022Review
- Clinician Perceptions of a Computerized Decision Support System for Pediatric Type 2 Diabetes Screening.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
- Emergency Department Clinician Perspectives on the Data Availability to Implement Clinical Decision Support Tools for Five Clinical Practice Guidelines.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2018Article
- General practitioners' user experience of the nationwide digital decision support system in primary care.Digital healthArticle
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 at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomated clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are associated with improvements in health care delivery to those with long-term conditions, including diabetes. A CDSS was introduced to two Scottish regions (combined diabetes population ~30 000) via a national diabetes electronic health record. This study aims to describe users' reactions to the CDSS and to quantify impact on clinical processes and outcomes over two improvement cycles: December 2013 to February 2014 and August 2014 to November 2014.
methodsFeedback was sought via patient questionnaires, health care professional (HCP) focus groups, and questionnaires. Multivariable regression was used to analyze HCP SCI-Diabetes usage (with respect to CDSS message presence/absence) and case-control comparison of clinical processes/outcomes. Cases were patients whose HCP received a CDSS messages during the study period. Closely matched controls were selected from regions outside the study, following similar clinical practice (without CDSS). Clinical process measures were screening rates for diabetes-related complications. Clinical outcomes included HbA1c at 1 year.
resultsThe CDSS had no adverse impact on consultations. HCPs were generally positive toward CDSS and used it within normal clinical workflow. CDSS messages were generated for 5692 cases, matched to 10 667 controls. Following clinic, the probability of patients being appropriately screened for complications more than doubled for most measures. Mean HbA1c improved in cases and controls but more so in cases (-2.3 mmol/mol [-0.2%] versus -1.1 [-0.1%], P = .003). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe CDSS was well received; associated with improved efficiencies in working practices; and large improvements in guideline adherence. These evidence-based, early interventions can significantly reduce costly and devastating complications.
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.