Cited by 124Electronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Features predicting the success of computerized decision support for prescribing: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Open access
Mollon, Brent, Chong, Jaron JR, Holbrook, Anne M, Sung, Melani, Thabane, Lehana, Foster, Gary·2009·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Computerized decision support systems (CDSS) are believed to have the potential to improve the quality of health care delivery, although results from high quality studies have been mixed. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether certain features of prescribing decision support systems (RxCDSS) predict successful implementation, change in provider behaviour, and change in patient outcomes. METHODS: A literature search of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and INSPEC databases (earliest entry to June 2008) was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials involving RxCDSS. Each citation was independently assessed by two reviewers for outcomes and 28 predefined system features. Statistical analysis of associations between system features and success of outcomes was planned. RESULTS: Of 4534 citations returned by the search, 41 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 37 reported successful system implementations, 25 reported success at changing health care provider behaviour, and 5 noted improvements in patient outcomes. A mean of 17 features per study were mentioned. The statistical analysis could not be completed due primarily to the small number of studies and lack of diversity of outcomes. Descriptive analysis did not confirm any feature to be more prevalent in successful trials relative to unsuccessful ones for implementation, provider behaviour or patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: While RxCDSSs have the potential to change health care provider behaviour, very few high quality studies show improvement in patient outcomes. Furthermore, the features of the RxCDSS associated with success (or failure) are poorly described, thus making it difficult for system design and implementation to improve.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6947-9-11

Cites

68 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 List of RxCDSS features evaluated. This figure summarizes the RxCDSS features evaluated in this review.
Figure 1 List of RxCDSS features evaluated. This figure summarizes the RxCDSS features evaluated in this review.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Study flow diagram. This diagram details the flow of citations through each stage of this systematic review.
Figure 2 Study flow diagram. This diagram details the flow of citations through each stage of this systematic review.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Canadian Institute for Health Information: Drug Expenditure in Canada 1985 to 2004. 2005, [http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H115-27-2004E.pdf]
  2. Baker M, Robson B, Shears J: Clinical decision support in the NHS – the clinical element. The Journal of Clinical Governance. 2002, 10: 77-82.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 124

Metadata

Authors
Mollon, B., Chong, J. J., Holbrook, A. M., Sung, M., Thabane, L., & Foster, G.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Holbrook, Anne M
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2009-02-11
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
11-11
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2017372316
Cited by
124
References
67
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
computerized decision support systems, system characteristics, implementation success, patient outcomes, drug safety, system design
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Medical Order Entry Systems

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