Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32706721›Full record

ReviewJMIR medical informatics2020

Appropriateness of Overridden Alerts in Computerized Physician Order Entry: Systematic Review.

Tahmina Nasrin Poly, Md Mohaimenul Islam, Hsuan-Chia Yang, Yu-Chuan Jack Li

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
20.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Alert fatigue measurement in clinical decision support: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Exploring the relationship between electronic health records and provider burnout: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tahmina Nasrin PolyGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3484-0222
Md Mohaimenul IslamGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6026-2748
Hsuan-Chia YangGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9198-0697
Yu-Chuan Jack LiGraduate Institute of Biomedical Informatics, College of Medical Science and Technology, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6497-4232
Wan Fang Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe clinical decision support system (CDSS) has become an indispensable tool for reducing medication errors and adverse drug events. However, numerous studies have reported that CDSS alerts are often overridden. The increase in override rates has raised questions about the appropriateness of CDSS application along with concerns about patient safety and quality of care.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to examine the override rate, the reasons for the alert override at the time of prescribing, and evaluate the appropriateness of overrides.

methodsWe searched electronic databases, including Google Scholar, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, without language restrictions between January 1, 2000 and March 31, 2019. Two authors independently extracted data and crosschecked the extraction to avoid errors. The quality of the included studies was examined following Cochrane guidelines.

resultsWe included 23 articles in our systematic review. The range of average override alerts was 46.2%-96.2%. An average of 29.4%-100% of the overrides alerts were classified as appropriate, and the rate of appropriateness varied according to the alert type (drug-allergy interaction 63.4%-100%, drug-drug interaction 0%-95%, dose 43.9%-88.8%, geriatric 14.3%-57%, renal 27%-87.5%). The interrater reliability for the assessment of override alerts appropriateness was excellent (kappa=0.79-0.97). The most common reasons given for the override were "will monitor" and "patients have tolerated before."

conclusionsThe findings of our study show that alert override rates are high, and certain categories of overrides such as drug-drug interaction, renal, and geriatric were classified as inappropriate. Nevertheless, large proportions of drug duplication, drug-allergy, and formulary alerts were appropriate, suggesting that these groups of alerts can be primary targets to revise and update the system for reducing alert fatigue. Future efforts should also focus on optimizing alert types, providing clear information, and explaining the rationale of the alert so that essential alerts are not inappropriately overridden.

Indexed as

alert fatigueclinical decision systemcomputerized physician order entryoverridepatient safety

Identifiers

PMID32706721
PMCPMC7400042
OpenAlexW3014693099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.