Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40540451›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

Designing Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS)-A User-Centered Lens of the Design Characteristics, Challenges, and Implications: Systematic Review.

Andrew A Bayor, Jane Li, Ian A Yang, Marlien Varnfield

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Artificial intelligence in respiratory medicine: From diagnosis to treatment and future directions.Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Andrew A BayorAustralian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 296 Herston Rd, Herston, Brisbane, QLD, 4006, Australia, 61 7 3253 3620.ORCID 0000-0002-1999-0521
Jane LiAustralian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 296 Herston Rd, Herston, Brisbane, QLD, 4006, Australia, 61 7 3253 3620.ORCID 0000-0002-2936-2318
Ian A YangThoracic Program, The Prince Charles Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8338-1993
Marlien VarnfieldAustralian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 296 Herston Rd, Herston, Brisbane, QLD, 4006, Australia, 61 7 3253 3620.ORCID 0000-0003-4848-0181

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have the potential to play a crucial role in enhancing health care quality by providing evidence-based information to clinicians at the point of care. Despite their increasing popularity, there is a lack of comprehensive research exploring their design characterization and trends. This limits our understanding and ability to optimize their functionality, usability, and adoption in health care settings. Objective: This systematic review examined the design characteristics of CDSS from a user-centered perspective, focusing on user-centered design (UCD), user experience (UX), and usability, to identify related design challenges and provide insights into the implications for future design of CDSS. Methods: This review followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations and used a grounded theory analytical approach to guide the conduct, data analysis, and synthesis. A search of 4 major electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore) was conducted for papers published between 2013 and 2023, using predefined design-focused keywords (design, UX, implementation, evaluation, usability, and architecture). Papers were included if they focused on a designed CDSS for a health condition and discussed the design and UX aspects (eg, design approach, architecture, or integration). Papers were excluded if they solely covered technical implementation or architecture (eg, machine learning methods) or were editorials, reviews, books, conference abstracts, or study protocols. Results: Out of 1905 initially identified papers, 40 passed screening and eligibility checks for a full review and analysis. Analysis of the studies revealed that UCD is the most widely adopted approach for designing CDSS, with all design processes incorporating functional or usability evaluation mechanisms. The CDSS reported were mainly clinician-facing and mostly stand-alone systems, with their design lacking consideration for integration with existing clinical information systems and workflows. Through a UCD lens, four key categories of challenges relevant to CDSS design were identified: (1) usability and UX, (2) validity and reliability, (3) data quality and assurance, and (4) design and integration complexities. Notably, a subset of studies incorporating Explainable artificial intelligence highlighted its emerging role in addressing key challenges related to validity and reliability by fostering explainability, transparency, and trust in CDSS recommendations, while also supporting collaborative validation with users. Conclusions: While CDSS show promise in enhancing health care delivery, identified challenges have implications for their future design, efficacy, and utilization. Adopting pragmatic UCD design approaches that actively involve users is essential for enhancing usability and addressing identified UX challenges. Integrating with clinical systems is crucial for interoperability and presents opportunities for AI-enabled CDSS that rely on large patient data. Incorporating emerging technologies such as Explainable Artificial Intelligence can boost trust and acceptance. Enabling functionality for CDSS to support both clinicians and patients can create opportunities for effective use in virtual care.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalUser-Centered DesignHumansartificial intelligenceCDSSclinical decision support systemcliniciansdesigndesign challengesdesign implicationsdiagnosticsEHRselectronic health recordselectronic medical recordsemerging technologiesEMRsexplainable AIfast healthcare interoprabiliity resourceFHIRhealth care deliveryimplementationintegrationmedical conditionspatient-cliniciansystematic reviewusability evaluationuser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID40540451
PMCPMC12463342

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.