Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36578097›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2022

Computerized clinical decision support systems for prescribing in primary care: main characteristics and implementation impact-protocol of an evidence and gap map.

Héctor Acosta-García, Ingrid Ferrer-López, Juan Ruano-Ruiz, Bernardo Santos-Ramos, Teresa Molina-López

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Héctor Acosta-GarcíaPharmacy Service, University Hospital Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain. hectoracostagarcia.hag@gmail.com.
Ingrid Ferrer-LópezPrimary Care Pharmacist Service, Sevilla Primary Care District, Seville, Spain.
Juan Ruano-RuizDermatology Service, IMIBIC/Reina Sofía University Hospital/University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Spain.
Bernardo Santos-Ramos *Pharmacy Service, University Hospital Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain.
Teresa Molina-López *Primary Care Pharmacist Service, Sevilla Primary Care District, Seville, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems are used by clinicians at the point of care to improve quality of healthcare processes (prescribing error prevention, adherence to clinical guidelines, etc.) and clinical outcomes (preventive, therapeutic, and diagnostics). Attempts to summarize results of computerized clinical decision support systems to support prescription in primary care have been challenging, and most systematic reviews and meta-analyses failed due to an extremely high degree of heterogeneity present among the included primary studies. The aim of our study will be to synthesize the evidence, considering all methodological factors that could explain these differences, and build an evidence and gap map to identify important remaining research questions.

methodsA literature search will be conducted from January 2010 onwards in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full text, and abstract data. The study methodological quality and risk of bias will be appraised using appropriate tools if applicable. A flow diagram with the screened studies will be presented, and all included studies will be displayed using interactive evidence and gap maps. Results will be reported in accordance with recommendations from the Campbell Collaboration on the development of evidence and gap maps. DISCUSSION: Evidence behind computerized clinical decision support systems to support prescription use in primary care has so far been difficult to be synthesized. Evidence and gap maps represent an innovative approach that has emerged and is increasingly being used to address a broader research question, where multiple types of intervention and outcomes reported may be evaluated. Broad inclusion criteria have been chosen with regard to study designs, in order to collect all available information. Regarding the limitations, we will only include English and Spanish language studies from the last 10 years, we will not perform a grey literature search, and we will not carry out a meta-analysis due to the predictable heterogeneity of available studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This study is registered in Open Science Framework https://bit.ly/2RqKrWp.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansPrescriptionsPrimary Health CareSystematic Reviews as TopicComputerized clinical decision support systemsElectronic prescribing decision support systemEvidence and gap mapsPrimary healthcare

Identifiers

PMID36578097
PMCPMC9798565

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.