The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Meta-analysis of 16 Randomized Controlled Trials to Evaluate Computer-Based Clinical Reminder Systems for Preventive Care in the Ambulatory Setting
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: Computer-based reminder systems have the potential to change physician and patient behaviors and to improve patient outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials to assess the overall effectiveness of computer-based reminder systems in ambulatory settings directed at preventive care. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches of the Medline (1966-1994), Nursing and Allied Health (1982-1994), and Health Planning and Administration (1975-1994) databases identified 16 randomized, controlled trials of computer-based reminder systems in ambulatory settings. STATISTICAL METHODS: A weighted mixed effects model regression analysis was used to estimate intervention effects for computer and manual reminder systems for six classes of preventive practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adjusted odds ratio for preventive practices. RESULTS: Computer reminders improved preventive practices compared with the control condition for vaccinations (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.39-4.00), breast cancer screening (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.44-2.45), colorectal cancer screening (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.74-2.91), and cardiovascular risk reduction (OR 2.01; 95% CI 1.55-2.61) but not cervical cancer screening (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.89-1.49) or other preventive care (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.79-1.32). For all six classes of preventive practices combined the adjusted OR was 1.77 (95% CI 1.38-2.27). CONCLUSION: Evidence from randomized controlled studies supports the effectiveness of data-driven computer-based reminder systems to improve prevention services in the ambulatory care setting.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tierney, W. M., Hui, S. L., & McDonald, C. J. (1986) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198608000-00001 · Cited by 337
Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis of Data from Epidemiologic Studies: A Commentary
Colditz, G. A., Burdick, E., & Mosteller, F. (1995) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117644 · Cited by 245
Cited by
From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care
Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14546-1 · Cited by 4,531
Kawamoto, K., Houlihan, C. A., Balas, E. A., & Lobach, D. F. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8f · Cited by 2,703
Meschia, J. F., Bushnell, C., Boden-Albala, B., Braun, L. T., Bravata, D. M., Chaturvedi, S., Creager, M. A., Eckel, R. H., Elkind, M. S. V., Fornage, M., et al. (2014) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000046 · Cited by 2,650
(2001) · PubMed · Cited by 1,709
Goldstein, L. B., Bushnell, C. D., Adams, R. J., Appel, L. J., Braun, L. T., Chaturvedi, S., Creager, M. A., Culebras, A., Eckel, R. H., Hart, R. G., et al. (2011) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0b013e3181fcb238 · Cited by 1,306
Metadata
- Authors
- Shea, S., DuMouchel, W., & Bahamonde, L.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-11-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 399-409
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- OpenAlex
- W2112808048
- Cited by
- 542
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.