Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35119463›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2022

Effect of Clinical Decision Support at Community Health Centers on the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rachel Gold, Annie E Larson, JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen, David Boston, Christina R Sheppler, John Heintzman, Carmit McMullen, Mary Middendorf, Deepika Appana, Vijayakumar Thirumalai and 8 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03001713 (CV Wizard), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT03001713 nacompletednot on this map

CV Wizard: Does a Prioritized, Point-of-Care Clinical Decision Support Tool Improve Guideline-Based CVD Risk Factor Control in Safety Net Clinics?

TypeinterventionalSponsorKaiser PermanenteRan2018 to 2024Enrolled70ConditionsHeart Attack, Stroke, Cardiovascular DiseasesArmsCV WIZARD
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Adaptation of Autoencoder for Sparsity Reduction From Clinical Notes Representation Learning.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rachel GoldCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Annie E LarsonOCHIN Inc, Portland, Oregon.
JoAnn M Sperl-HillenHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
David BostonOCHIN Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Christina R ShepplerCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
John HeintzmanOCHIN Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Carmit McMullenCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Mary MiddendorfOCHIN Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Deepika AppanaHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Vijayakumar ThirumalaiHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Ann RomerOCHIN Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Julianne BavaOCHIN Inc, Portland, Oregon.
James V DavisCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Nadia YosufCenter for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Jenny HauschildtOCHIN Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Kristin ScottOCHIN Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Susan MooreOCHIN Inc, Portland, Oregon.
Patrick J O'ConnorHealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Ochin · USKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USHealthPartners · US

Funding

Translational Research Core - Health Engagement & Action Translational (HEAT)P30DK092924 · NIDDK · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI Alyce Sophia Adams, HILARY Kessler SELIGMAN · 2011 to 2026
$9.2M
CV Wizard: Does a Prioritized, Point-of-Care Clinical Decision Support Tool Improve Guideline-Based CVD Risk Factor Control in Safety Net Clinics?R01HL133793 · NHLBI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GOLD, RACHEL · 2017 to 2021
$3.8M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL133793NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in socioeconomically vulnerable patients is suboptimal; better risk factor control could improve CVD outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the impact of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) targeting CVD risk in community health centers (CHCs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial included 70 CHC clinics randomized to an intervention group (42 clinics; 8 organizations) or a control group that received no intervention (28 clinics; 7 organizations) from September 20, 2018, to March 15, 2020. Randomization was by CHC organization accounting for organization size. Patients aged 40 to 75 years with (1) diabetes or atherosclerotic CVD and at least 1 uncontrolled major risk factor for CVD or (2) total reversible CVD risk of at least 10% were the population targeted by the CDSS intervention. Interventions: A point-of-care CDSS displaying real-time CVD risk factor control data and personalized, prioritized evidence-based care recommendations. Main Outcomes and Measures: One-year change in total CVD risk and reversible CVD risk (ie, the reduction in 10-year CVD risk that was considered achievable if 6 key risk factors reached evidence-based levels of control). Results: Among the 18 578 eligible patients (9490 [51.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 58.7 [8.8] years), patients seen in control clinics (n = 7419) had higher mean (SD) baseline CVD risk (16.6% [12.8%]) than patients seen in intervention clinics (n = 11 159) (15.6% [12.3%]; P < .001); baseline reversible CVD risk was similarly higher among patients seen in control clinics. The CDSS was used at 19.8% of 91 988 eligible intervention clinic encounters. No population-level reduction in CVD risk was seen in patients in control or intervention clinics; mean reversible risk improved significantly more among patients in control (-0.1% [95% CI, -0.3% to -0.02%]) than intervention clinics (0.4% [95% CI, 0.3% to 0.5%]; P < .001). However, when the CDSS was used, both risk measures decreased more among patients with high baseline risk in intervention than control clinics; notably, mean reversible risk decreased by an absolute 4.4% (95% CI, -5.2% to -3.7%) among patients in intervention clinics compared with 2.7% (95% CI, -3.4% to -1.9%) among patients in control clinics (P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The CDSS had low use rates and failed to improve CVD risk in the overall population but appeared to have a benefit on CVD risk when it was consistently used for patients with high baseline risk treated in CHCs. Despite some limitations, these results provide preliminary evidence that this technology has the potential to improve clinical care in socioeconomically vulnerable patients with high CVD risk. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03001713.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCardiovascular DiseasesCommunity Health CentersDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35119463
PMCPMC8817199
OpenAlexW4210683333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.