ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
A Case Study: Optimizing CDS for Pediatric Oncology Trials by Transitioning from Interruptive to Passive Alerts.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation and Evaluation of an Alternative Electronic Health Record Tool for Ordering Blood Products in Pediatric Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation: Mixed Methods Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Improving Discrete Documentation of Cancer Staging-An Alert-Free Approach.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Rethinking the Biohazardous Bodily Fluids Alert for Improved Workflow and Safety.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many children with cancer are treated as part of interventional clinical trials. Ensuring that the correct chemotherapy treatment plan is used is paramount.The objectives of this report were to: (1) highlight the initial design of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool that was intended to help ensure the correct matching of research studies to research chemotherapy medications, (2) discuss the issues identified with the CDS tool, and (3) review the redesign of the tool that was done to overcome the issues identified.We previously utilized an interruptive alert developed by Epic Systems to identify mismatches between a patient's chemotherapy plan and research study. We identified an issue with the logic of the alert resulting in the alert firing inappropriately.We estimate that the chemotherapy-research plan alert fired when 93.4% of treatment plans were applied (17.3 alerts/provider/year). A high number of misfiring alerts were identified due to the inclusion of our institution name as both (1) a "tag" in the research protocol, and (2) an unallowed tag in the research study record. Since the tag was included in all protocols, but also unallowed in all research records the alert fired with the application of almost all treatment plans. We developed a new mechanism to provide CDS that did not involve an interruptive alert. Within the research study record, we manually associate compatible treatment plans to that study record, and then when an oncologist goes to order chemotherapy the system prioritizes the display of compatible treatment plans to the oncologist. The goal of the redesigned CDS approach is to eliminate interruptive alerts while ensuring the correct chemotherapy plan is selected.With end-user engagement and creative approaches to CDS design, interruptive alerts can be transitioned into passive and effective CDS tools.
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.