Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35652167›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022

Conceptualizing clinical decision support as complex interventions: a meta-analysis of comparative effectiveness trials.

Thomas J Reese, Siru Liu, Bryan Steitz, Allison McCoy, Elise Russo, Brian Koh, Jessica Ancker, Adam Wright

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Research synthesis as a strategy for advancing biomedical and health informatics knowledge.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    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

8 authors.

Thomas J ReeseDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1081-1670
Siru LiuDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Bryan SteitzDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Allison McCoyDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2292-9147
Elise RussoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Brian KohDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Jessica AnckerDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3859-9130
Adam WrightDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

Funding

Safety Promotion through Early Event Detection in the Elderly (SPEEDe)R01AG062499 · NIA · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI WRIGHT, ADAM T · 2019 to 2023
$3.5M
Making Numbers Meaningful: Promoting Evidence-based Communication of Numbers in HealthR01LM012964 · NLM · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI ANCKER, JESSICA S. · 2018 to 2021
$1.4M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG062499NIH HHSNIH HHS R01 AG062499NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012964
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesComplex interventions with multiple components and behavior change strategies are increasingly implemented as a form of clinical decision support (CDS) using native electronic health record functionality. Objectives of this study were, therefore, to (1) identify the proportion of randomized controlled trials with CDS interventions that were complex, (2) describe common gaps in the reporting of complexity in CDS research, and (3) determine the impact of increased complexity on CDS effectiveness. MATERIALS AND

methodsTo assess CDS complexity and identify reporting gaps for characterizing CDS interventions, we used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting tool for complex interventions. We evaluated the effect of increased complexity using random-effects meta-analysis.

resultsMost included studies evaluated a complex CDS intervention (76%). No studies described use of analytical frameworks or causal pathways. Two studies discussed use of theory but only one fully described the rationale and put it in context of a behavior change. A small but positive effect (standardized mean difference, 0.147; 95% CI, 0.039-0.255; P < .01) in favor of increasing intervention complexity was observed. DISCUSSION: While most CDS studies should classify interventions as complex, opportunities persist for documenting and providing resources in a manner that would enable CDS interventions to be replicated and adapted. Unless reporting of the design, implementation, and evaluation of CDS interventions improves, only slight benefits can be expected.

conclusionConceptualizing CDS as complex interventions may help convey the careful attention that is needed to ensure these interventions are contextually and theoretically informed.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicclinical decision supportcomparative effectivenesscomplex interventionelectronic health recordreporting guideline

Identifiers

PMID35652167
PMCPMC9471719

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.