Cited by 123Electronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

A taxonomic description of computer-based clinical decision support systems

Open access
Berlin, Amy, Sorani, Marco, Sim, Ida·2006·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Abstract

Objective Computer-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) vary greatly in design and function. Using a taxonomy that we had previously developed, we describe the characteristics of CDSSs reported in the literature.Methods We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between 1998 and 2003 that evaluated CDSSs. We coded each CDSS using our taxonomy.Results 58 studies met our inclusion criteria. The 74 reported CDSSs varied greatly in context of use, knowledge and data sources, nature of decision support offered, information delivery, and workflow impact. Two distinct subsets of CDSSs were seen: patient-directed systems that provided decision support for preventive care or health-related behaviors via mail or phone (38% of systems), and inpatient systems targeting clinicians with online decision support and direct online execution of the recommendations (18%). 84% of the CDSSs required extra staffing for handling CDSS-related input or output.Conclusion Reported CDSSs are heterogeneous along many dimensions. Caution should be taken in generalizing the results of CDSS RCTs to different clinical or workflow settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2005.12.003

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A meta-analysis would have been inappropriate because of significant heterogeneity among studies in sample characteristics, specific technologies studied, and functions of those technologies.

    “As others who have reviewed health IT research have pointed out, a meta-analysis would have been inappropriate because of the significant heterogeneity among studies in terms of sample characteristics, specific technologies studied, and functions of those technologies [93, 94].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Kuperman G, Sittig D, Shabot M. Clinical decision support for hospital and critical care. J Healthc Inf Manage 1999;13(2):81-96.
  2. Broverman CA. Standards for clinical decision support systems. J Healthc Inf Manage 1999;13(2):23-31.
  3. Perreault L. A pragmatic framework for understanding decision support. J Healthc Inf Manage 1999;13(2):5-21.
  4. Teich JM. Inpatient order management. J Healthc Inf Manage 1999;13(2):97-110.
  5. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, George J, McBride S, Moncrease A, Simon MS, et al. How reminders given to patients and physicians affected pap smear use in a health maintenance organization: results of a randomized controlled trial. Cancer 1998;82(12):2391-400.
  6. Shojania K, Yokoe D, Platt R, Fiskio J, Ma'luf N, Bates D. Reducing vancomycin use utilizing a computer guidline. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998;5:554-62.
  7. Williams RB, Boles M, Johnson R. A Patient-Initiated System for Preventive Health Care. Arch Fam Med 1998;7:338-45.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berlin, A., Sorani, M., & Sim, I.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Sim, Ida
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-12
Volume
39
Issue
6
Pages
656-667
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2159312907
Cited by
123
References
71
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 8
FWCI
13.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH 060482, R25MH060482)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (LM 06780, R01LM006780)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
Keywords
clinical decision support systems, information delivery, generalizability of trial results
MeSH terms
Electronic Data Processing, Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Preventive Medicine, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Internet, PubMed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review