ReviewJMIR medical informatics2020
Effects of Computerized Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review.
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 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of computerised clinical decision support systems: an overview of reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of Changing Electronic Health Record Opioid Analgesic Dispense Quantity Defaults on the Quantity Prescribed: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- Enhancing Continuous Medication Safety Through e-Prescription and Clinical Decision Support Systems in Outpatient Practices and Pharmacies: Protocol for a Multiperspective Study (eRIKA Study).JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Online Decision Support for Implementing Evidence-Based HPV Vaccination Strategies in Texas Safety-Net Pediatric Clinics: Impact on HPV, MCV, and Tdap Initiation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- CDTD-Agent: a retrieval-augmented multi-agent digital health framework for integrated diabetes care: a single-case expert-rated pilot study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Development of a Clinical Decision Support Tool to Implement Asthma Management Guidelines in Pediatric Primary Care: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of AI-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems: Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of computerised clinical decision support systems: an umbrella review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Transforming evidence-based clinical guidelines into implementable clinical decision support services: the CAREPATH study for multimorbidity management.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Development, Design and Utilization of a CDSS for Refeeding Syndrome in Real Life Inpatient Care-A Feasibility Study.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Article
- Physician Compliance With a Computerized Clinical Decision Support System for Anemia Management of Patients With End-stage Kidney Disease on Hemodialysis: Retrospective Electronic Health Record Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Adoption of shared decision-making and clinical decision support for reducing cardiovascular disease risk in community health centers.JAMIA open · 2023Article
- Surgery or comfort care for neonates with surgical necrotizing enterocolitis: Lessons learned from behavioral artificial intelligence technology.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Integration of Risk Scores and Integration Capability in Electronic Patient Records.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- Coordinated use of Health Level 7 standards to support clinical decision support: Case study with shared decision making and drug-drug interactions.International journal of medical informatics · 2022Article
- Human Factors and Technological Characteristics Influencing the Interaction of Medical Professionals With Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Clinical Decision Support Systems: Literature Review.JMIR human factors · 2022Review
- Electronic Health Records as Biased Tools or Tools Against Bias: A Conceptual Model.The Milbank quarterly · 2022Article
- Clinical decision support for tobacco screening and counseling parents of pediatric patients: A qualitative analysis of pediatric emergency department and urgent care professionals.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2022Article
- Progress Toward Digital Transformation in an Evolving Post-Acute Landscape.Innovation in aging · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are software programs that support the decision making of practitioners and other staff. Other reviews have analyzed the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient outcomes. These reviews reported positive practitioner performance in over half the articles analyzed, but very little information was found for patient outcomes.
objectiveThe purpose of this review was to analyze the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient medical outcomes. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were queried.
methodsArticles were chosen based on year published (last 10 years), high quality, peer-reviewed sources, and discussion of the relationship between the use of CDSS as an intervention and links to practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers used an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation) to collect information on the relationship between CDSSs and practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers also collected observations of participants, intervention, comparison with control group, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) along with those showing implicit bias. Articles were analyzed by multiple reviewers following the Kruse protocol for systematic reviews. Data were organized into multiple tables for analysis and reporting.
resultsThemes were identified for both practitioner performance (n=38) and medical outcomes (n=36). A total of 66% (25/38) of articles had occurrences of positive practitioner performance, 13% (5/38) found no difference in practitioner performance, and 21% (8/38) did not report or discuss practitioner performance. Zero articles reported negative practitioner performance. A total of 61% (22/36) of articles had occurrences of positive patient medical outcomes, 8% (3/36) found no statistically significant difference in medical outcomes between intervention and control groups, and 31% (11/36) did not report or discuss medical outcomes. Zero articles found negative patient medical outcomes attributed to using CDSSs.
conclusionsResults of this review are commensurate with previous reviews with similar objectives, but unlike these reviews we found a high level of reporting of positive effects on patient medical outcomes.
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.