Trial reportImplementation science : IS2020
Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01830569 (Feasibility and Impact of an Evidence-based Electronic Decision Support System on Diabetes Care in Family Medicine), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 6 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.
Feasibility and Impact of an Evidence-based Electronic Decision Support System on Diabetes Care in Family Medicine: a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality improvement strategies for diabetes care: Effects on outcomes for adults living with diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of the chronic care model for adults with type 2 diabetes in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled 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
- Do providers use computerized clinical decision support systems? A systematic review and meta-regression of clinical decision support uptake.Implementation science : IS · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.Annals of family medicinePooled it
- Effectiveness of Electronic Quality Improvement Activities to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk in People With Chronic Kidney Disease in General Practice: Cluster Randomized Trial With Active Control.JMIR formative research · 2025 · on this mapTrial
- Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Effect of Clinical Decision Support at Community Health Centers on the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Evaluation of an mHealth-enabled hierarchical diabetes management intervention in primary care in China (ROADMAP): A cluster randomized trial.PLoS medicine · 2021Trial
- A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of a Primary Care Behavioral Health Integration Program Based on the Chronic Care Model.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Observational
- Do process evaluations open up the 'black box' of implementation interventions in health care? A scoping review.Implementation science : IS · 2025Article
- Emerging Diagnostic Approaches for Musculoskeletal Disorders: Advances in Imaging, Biomarkers, and Clinical Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Examining clinicians' fatigue in a pediatric emergency department.Applied ergonomics · 2025Article
- Do clinical decision support tools improve quality of care outcomes in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2024Article
- Benefits of Clinical Decision Support Systems for the Management of Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases: Targeted Literature Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Review
- Application of a user experience design approach for an EHR-based clinical decision support system.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- Implementing a Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor Module With a Software Tool (Future Health Today): Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Clinical decision support systems for diabetic foot ulcers: a scoping review.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2024Article
- Applications of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Diabetes Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe EBMeDS system is the computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) system of EBPNet, a national computerized point-of-care information service in Belgium. There is no clear evidence of more complex CCDS systems to manage chronic diseases in primary care practices (PCPs). The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of EBMeDS use in improving diabetes care.
methodsA cluster-randomized trial with before-and-after measurements was performed in Belgian PCPs over 1 year, from May 2017 to May 2018. We randomly assigned 51 practices to either the intervention group (IG), to receive the EBMeDS system, or to the control group (CG), to receive usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were the 1-year pre- to post-implementation change in HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Composite patient and process scores were calculated. A process evaluation was added to the analysis. Results were analyzed at 6 and 12 months. Linear mixed models and logistic regression models based on generalized estimating equations were used where appropriate.
resultsOf the 51 PCPs that were enrolled and randomly assigned (26 PCPs in the CG and 25 in the IG), 29 practices (3815 patients) were analyzed in the study: 2464 patients in the CG and 1351 patients in the IG. No change differences existed between groups in primary or secondary outcomes. Change difference between CG and IG after 1-year follow-up was - 0.09 (95% CI - 0.18; 0.01, p-value = 0.06) for HbA1c; 1.76 (95% CI - 0.46; 3.98, p-value = 0.12) for LDL cholesterol; and 0.13 (95% CI - 0.91; 1.16, p-value = 0.81) and 0.12 (95% CI - 1.25;1.49, p-value = 0.86) for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively. The odds ratio of the IG versus the CG for the probability of no worsening and improvement was 1.09 (95% CI 0.73; 1.63, p-value = 0.67) for the process composite score and 0.74 (95% CI 0.49; 1.12, p-value = 0.16) for the composite patient score. All but one physician was satisfied with the EBMeDS system.
conclusionsThe CCDS system EBMeDS did not improve diabetes care in Belgian primary care. The lack of improvement was mainly caused by imperfections in the organizational context of Belgian primary care for chronic disease management and shortcomings in the system requirements for the correct use of the EBMeDS system (e.g., complete structured records). These shortcomings probably caused low-use rates of the system.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01830569, Registered 12 April 2013.
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.