ReviewCureus2026
Effectiveness of Single-Component Clinician Reminder Systems for Smoking and Obesity Preventive Care in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinician-facing reminder systems are widely used in primary care to improve preventive care delivery, but their effectiveness in managing behavioral risk factors remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether single-component clinician reminder systems improve smoking- and obesity-related preventive care in primary care settings. Four electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2026 for primary care studies comparing single-component clinician reminder systems with usual care. Eligible study designs included randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized controlled trials, and controlled before-and-after studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Four studies conducted in the United States between 1995 and 2022 were included; three examined smoking-related reminders, and one evaluated an obesity documentation prompt. Two studies were judged to have low risk of bias, one had some concerns, and one had a serious risk of bias. Individual studies generally demonstrated improvements in at least one preventive care process outcome: smoking status vital sign prompts increased physician discussion of smoking from 47% to 86% and advice to quit from 50% to 80%; routine smoking identification increased smoking cessation counseling from 53.4% to 61.9% and advice to quit from 51.5% to 59.9%; an electronic best practice alert increased quitline referrals from 0% in usual care to 9.1% in the intervention group; and adding obesity to the problem list increased documentation of obesity being addressed during follow-up from 4.6% to 14.7%. Despite these favorable individual findings, pooled analysis showed no statistically significant overall effect, with very high heterogeneity across studies. In conclusion, single-component clinician reminder systems may improve selected preventive care processes in primary care, but the overall evidence remains heterogeneous and inconclusive.
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.