ArticleThe Ulster medical journal2026
Perceptions of resident doctors on how digital clinical decision support influences decisions on use of resources.
Article in The Ulster medical journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There is a growing interest in the use of digital learning and clinical decision support (CDS) in medical education and clinical practice. However, until recently there has been little interest in the potential cost savings that could emerge from the use of digital CDS in clinical practice. This study attempted to fill this gap by asking frontline resident doctors by means of a questionnaire to what extent they value digital CDS resources as a way of saving costs. Methods: We developed a questionnaire to examine the perceptions of frontline resident doctors on CDS use. Topics explored included the use of CDS to save costs by avoiding unnecessary interventions; if and how CDS assisted with decision making, and barriers and enablers to achieving these outcomes. We emailed the questionnaire to frontline resident doctors. Results: A total of 170 resident doctors were invited to participate in the study, with 105 completing the questionnaire (response rate 62%). Resident doctors are doctors who are in postgraduate training, but who have not yet achieved consultant status. A total of 42 respondents (40%) agreed or strongly agreed that CDS helped them avoid unnecessary referrals. Overall, 32 respondents (31%) agreed or strongly agreed that using the resource helped them reduce length of stay in hospital. A total of 44 respondents (42%) agreed or strongly agreed that using the resource helped them avoid unnecessary admissions. 76 respondents (72%) agreed or strongly agreed that CDS helped them avoid unnecessary investigations or treatments. Discussion: The findings from this study show that some resident doctors can use CDS to reduce resource use. Resident doctors may find CDS a supportive tool to assist decision making and so to avoid some unnecessary tests and treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42893089PMC13676192What 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.