Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39416379›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive cardiology2024

Do clinical decision support tools improve quality of care outcomes in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Iva Buzancic, Harvey Jia Wei Koh, Caroline Trin, Caitlin Nash, Maja Ortner Hadziabdic, Dora Belec, Sophia Zoungas, Ella Zomer, Lachlan Dalli, Zanfina Ademi and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

12 authors.

Iva BuzancicFaculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, A. Kovacica 1, Zagreb, Croatia.
Harvey Jia Wei KohSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Alfred Precinct, Melbourne, VIC. 3004, Australia.
Caroline TrinSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Alfred Precinct, Melbourne, VIC. 3004, Australia.
Caitlin NashSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Alfred Precinct, Melbourne, VIC. 3004, Australia.
Maja Ortner HadziabdicFaculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, A. Kovacica 1, Zagreb, Croatia.
Dora BelecFaculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, University of Zagreb, A. Kovacica 1, Zagreb, Croatia.
Sophia ZoungasSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Alfred Precinct, Melbourne, VIC. 3004, Australia.
Ella ZomerSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Alfred Precinct, Melbourne, VIC. 3004, Australia.
Lachlan DalliStroke and Ageing Research, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Level 2, 631 Blackburn Road, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.
Zanfina AdemiSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Alfred Precinct, Melbourne, VIC. 3004, Australia.
Bryan ChuaSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Alfred Precinct, Melbourne, VIC. 3004, Australia.
Stella TalicSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Alfred Precinct, Melbourne, VIC. 3004, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: To assess the effectiveness of Clinical Decision Support Tools (CDSTs) in enhancing the quality of care outcomes in primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, and included searches in Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of CDSTs comprising digital notifications in electronic health systems (EHS/EHR) in various primary healthcare settings, published post-2013, in patients with CVD risks and without established CVD. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool. Attainment of clinical targets was analysed using a Restricted Maximum Likelihood random effects meta-analysis. Other relevant outcomes were narratively synthesised due to heterogeneity of studies and outcome metrics. Results: Meta-analysis revealed CDSTs showed improvement in systolic (Mean Standardised Difference (MSD)=0.39, 95 %CI=-0.31, -1.10) and diastolic blood pressure target achievement (MSD=0.34, 95 %CI=-0.24, -0.92), but had no significant impact on lipid (MSD=0.01; 95 %CI=-0.10, 0.11) or glucose target attainment (MSD=-0.19, 95 %CI=-0.66, 0.28). The CDSTs with active prompts increased statin initiation and improved patients' adherence to clinical appointments but had minimal effect on other medications and on enhancing adherence to medication. Conclusion: CDSTs were found to be effective in improving blood pressure clinical target attainments. However, the presence of multi-layered barriers affecting the uptake, longer-term use and active engagement from both clinicians and patients may hinder the full potential for achieving other quality of care outcomes. Lay Summary: The study aimed to evaluate how Clinical Decision Support Tools (CDSTs) impact the quality of care for primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) management. CDSTs are tools designed to support healthcare professionals in delivering the best possible care to patients by providing timely and relevant information at the point of care (ie. digital notifications in electronic health systems). Although CDST are designed to improve the quality of healthcare outcomes, the current evidence of their effectiveness is inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis, to quantify the effectiveness of CDSTs. The eligibility criteria targeted patients with CVD risk factors, but without diagnosed CVD. The meta-analysis found that CDSTs showed improvement in systolic and diastolic blood pressure target achievement but did not significantly impact lipid or glucose target attainment. Specifically, CDSTs showed effectiveness in increasing statin prescribing but not antihypertensives or antidiabetics prescribing. Interventions with CDSTs aimed at increasing screening programmes were effective for patients with kidney diseases and high-risk patients, but not for patients with diabetes or teenage patients with hypertension. Alerts were effective in improving patients' adherence to clinical appointments but not in medication adherence. This study suggests CDSTs are effective in enhancing a limited number of quality of care outcomes in primary CVD prevention, but there is need for future research to explore the mechanisms and context of multiple barriers that may hinder the full potential for cardiovascular health outcomes to be achieved.

Indexed as

Blood glucoseBlood pressureCardiovascular diseaseClinical decision support toolLipid levelsMeta-analysisPrimary prevention

Identifiers

PMID39416379
PMCPMC11481602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.