ArticleElectronic physician2018
Evaluation of computerized provider order entry systems: assessing the usability of systems for electronic prescription.
Article in Electronic physician, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Usability evaluation methods for hospital information systems: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- The effect of electronic prescription systems on pharmacy performance through evaluation of existing infrastructure in Kerman Iran.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Implementation of Computerized Prescriber Order Entry Systems: A Review of Impacts, Barriers, and Facilitators.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe field of medicine has been influenced by the growth and development of information systems such as the Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) System.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the usability of CPOE systems for electronic prescription in Tehran, Iran.
methodsThis was an evaluation study conducted in 2017. The research population consisted of the CPOE systems used in hospitals of Tehran (Iran) and nurses who had access to, and used, the CPOE systems. Five hospitals with CPOE systems were included in the research sample. The data were collected using a questionnaire, and included a total of 50 questions. The questionnaires were distributed among 254 nurses who were the users of the systems. Data analysis was performed by IBM-SPSS version 21, using independent-samples t-test. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsAmong the four aspects assessed, the "user-friendliness" (3.87±0.59) had the highest mean score. The lowest mean score (2.01±0.58) was related to the "decision support" feature of the systems. The highest and lowest mean scores for "prescription support" criterion belonged to system E (3.26±0.23) and system C (1.90±0.16), respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the usability of the systems used in the private and the public hospitals (p<0.001). It was found that the CPOE systems in private hospitals had a higher level of usability (3.42+0.10) compared to those in public hospitals (2.91+0.25).
conclusionTwo main functions of the studied CPOE systems i.e., decision support and prescription support should be developed to make electronic prescription safer and more intuitive. Addressing usability aspects of CPOE systems in practice could improve the usability of these systems for prescription.
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.