SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of computerised clinical decision support systems: an overview of reviews.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting chemotherapy-induced liver injury in breast cancer patients.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
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
backgroundThe use of computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) holds considerable potential in enhancing healthcare delivery by improving patient safety, practitioner performance, and patient outcomes. However, despite the numerous reported advantages of CDSSs, their adoption remains restricted, thereby compromising the full realisation of their potential. To enable a profound evaluation and successful implementation of these systems, it is imperative to identify the reasons for their limited uptake. The objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of decision support systems across healthcare settings.
methodsThis study was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement. A systematic search was conducted in the databases PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to 15 October 2024, targeting at review articles of primary studies focusing on the identification and reporting of barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of CDSSs across healthcare settings. The risk of bias of the included reviews was assessed with the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool, and the primary study overlap was calculated using the corrected covered area method. All data on barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of CDSSs were extracted from the included reviews, synthesised through a mapping of identical factors, and ranked according to their frequency of occurrence.
resultsOf the 1640 records retrieved through database searches, 30 reviews were included in this overview, which summarised the findings of 721 unique primary studies. A total of 101 distinct factors influencing the implementation and adoption of CDSSs were identified and could be categorised into the overarching categories of human, technology-related, and contextual factors. The following six factors were reported most frequently: usability, usefulness/perceived benefits, organisational readiness, training, trust, and workflow integration.
conclusionsThe findings of this study highlight the diversity of factors that influence a successful implementation of CDSSs and emphasise the need for their comprehensive evaluation that goes beyond the assessment of general performance aspects but takes into account human and contextual factors. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024507614.
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.