Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31342180›Full record

ArticleCurrent infectious disease reports2019

Clinical Decision Support Systems and Their Role in Antibiotic Stewardship: a Systematic Review.

Barry Rittmann, Michael P Stevens

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current infectious disease reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. [Antibiotic use: psychological factors influencing perceptions and behavior of physicians and patients].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Barry RittmannVirginia Commonwealth University Health Systems, Richmond, USA. rittmannbj@gmail.com.
Michael P StevensVirginia Commonwealth University Health Systems, Richmond, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe purpose of this article is to perform a systematic review over the past 5 years on the role and effectiveness of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) on antibiotic stewardship. RECENT

findingsCDDS interventions found a significant impact on multiple outcomes relevant to antibiotic stewardship. There are various types of CDSS implementations, both active and passive (provider initiated). Passive interventions were associated with more significant outcomes; however, both interventions appeared effective. In the reviewed literature, CDSSs were consistently associated with decreasing antibiotic consumption and narrowing the spectrum of antibiotic usage. Generally, guideline adherence was improved with CDSS, although this was not universal. The effect on other outcomes, such as mortality, Clostridiodes difficile infections, length of stay, and cost, inconsistently showed a significant difference. Overall, CDDS implementation has effectively decreased antibiotic consumption and improved guideline adherence across the various types of CDSS. Other positive outcomes were noted in certain settings, but were not universal. When creating a new intervention, it is important to identify the optimal structure and deployment of a CDSS for a specific setting.

Indexed as

Antibiotic stewardshipAntimicrobial stewardshipCDDSClinical decision support systemDecision support system

Identifiers

PMID31342180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.