Trial reportPLoS medicine2018
A clinical decision support tool for improving adherence to guidelines on anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke: A cluster-randomized trial in a Swedish primary care setting (the CDS-AF study).
Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02635685 (Clinical Decision Support for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation - a Cluster Randomized Trial in the Primary Care Setting), which is not on this map. Cited by 59 papers, 10 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.
Clinical Decision Support for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation - a Cluster Randomized Trial in the Primary Care Setting
Who cites it
59 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to improve adherence to clinical practice guidelines when treating cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Pooled it
- Electronic Health Record Nudges and Health Care Quality and Outcomes in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Guideline
- 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2024Guideline
- The Role of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Preventing Stroke in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.Perspectives in health information managemen · 2023Pooled 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
- A Systematic Review of Economic Aspects of Service Interventions to Increase Anticoagulation Use in Atrial Fibrillation.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2022Pooled it
- The effects of clinical decision support system for prescribing medication on patient outcomes and physician practice performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Pooled it
- Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled it
- The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2009Pooled it
- Sustainability of an electronic technology-based intervention in general practice targeting improved detection and monitoring of the interrelated chronic vascular diseases.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Pediatric Clinician Adherence to Peanut Allergy Prevention Guidelines: A Randomized Trial.Pediatrics · 2025Trial
- Effect of a clinical decision support system for non-valvular atrial fibrillation on improving appropriate anticoagulation treatment in China's primary care: a cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC primary care · 2025Trial
- Decision Support Intervention and Anticoagulation for Emergency Department Atrial Fibrillation: The O'CAFÉ Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Using a Clinical Decision Support System to Improve Anticoagulation in Patients with Nonvalve Atrial Fibrillation in China's Primary Care Settings: A Feasibility Study.International journal of clinical practice · 2023Trial
- Supporting anticoagulant treatment decision making to optimise stroke prevention in complex patients with atrial fibrillation: a cluster randomised trial.BMC family practice · 2020Trial
- Barriers to a software reminder system for risk assessment of stroke in atrial fibrillation: a process evaluation of a cluster randomised trial in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Trial
- Article
- Qualitative Evaluation of a Clinical Decision-Support Tool for Improving Anticoagulation Control in Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in Primary Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with substantial morbidity, in particular stroke. Despite good evidence for the reduction of stroke risk with anticoagulant therapy, there remains significant undertreatment. The main aim of the current study was to investigate whether a clinical decision support tool (CDS) for stroke prevention integrated in the electronic health record could improve adherence to guidelines for stroke prevention in patients with AF. METHODS AND
findingsWe conducted a cluster-randomized trial where all 43 primary care clinics in the county of Östergötland, Sweden (population 444,347), were randomized to be part of the CDS intervention or to serve as controls. The CDS produced an alert for physicians responsible for patients with AF and at increased risk for thromboembolism (according to the CHA2DS2-VASc algorithm) without anticoagulant therapy. The primary endpoint was adherence to guidelines after 1 year. After randomization, there were 22 and 21 primary care clinics in the CDS and control groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in baseline adherence to guidelines regarding anticoagulant therapy between the 2 groups (CDS group 70.3% [5,186/7,370; 95% CI 62.9%-77.7%], control group 70.0% [4,187/6,009; 95% CI 60.4%-79.6%], p = 0.83). After 12 months, analysis with linear regression with adjustment for primary care clinic size and adherence to guidelines at baseline revealed a significant increase in guideline adherence in the CDS (73.0%, 95% CI 64.6%-81.4%) versus the control group (71.2%, 95% CI 60.8%-81.6%, p = 0.013, with a treatment effect estimate of 0.016 [95% CI 0.003-0.028]; number of patients with AF included in the final analysis 8,292 and 6,508 in the CDS and control group, respectively). Over the study period, there was no difference in the incidence of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic thromboembolism in the CDS group versus the control group (49 [95% CI 43-55] per 1,000 patients with AF in the CDS group compared to 47 [95% CI 39-55] per 1,000 patients with AF in the control group, p = 0.64). Regarding safety, the CDS group had a lower incidence of significant bleeding, with events in 12 (95% CI 9-15) per 1,000 patients with AF compared to 16 (95% CI 12-20) per 1,000 patients with AF in the control group (p = 0.04). Limitations of the study design include that the analysis was carried out in a catchment area with a high baseline adherence rate, and issues regarding reproducibility to other regions.
conclusionsThe present study demonstrates that a CDS can increase guideline adherence for anticoagulant therapy in patients with AF. Even though the observed difference was small, this is the first randomized study to our knowledge indicating beneficial effects with a CDS in patients with AF.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02635685.
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.