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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
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.
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“interventions that demonstrated clear and consistent clinical evidence of benefit [3, 16, 34, 35, 51, 55, 56, 68, 74, 89] or good applicability relevant to setting [3, 35, 68] were shown to facilitate implementation.”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [74]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“When the fit was good [14, 73, 74], for example, when e-prescribing was sufficiently integrated as part of clinician workflow, work process was improved [14].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [74]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“However, insufficient attention to the reporting of these features in intervention studies has hampered these approaches.14”
From Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake (2010) · cites this paper as [14]
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
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health
Campbell, M. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7262.694 · Cited by 3,474 · cited 1×
“All CDSS are by definition, complex interventions meaning mutifactorial, multidisciplinary and usually multi-staged [20,63].”
Garg, A. X., Adhikari, N. K. J., McDonald, H., Rosas-Arellano, M. P., Devereaux, P. J., Beyene, J., Sam, J., & Haynes, R. B. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1223 · Cited by 2,936
Kawamoto, K., Houlihan, C. A., Balas, E. A., & Lobach, D. F. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8f · Cited by 2,703
Role of Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in Facilitating Medication Errors
Koppel, R. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1197 · Cited by 2,126
Improving Safety with Information Technology
Bates, D. W., & Gawande, A. A. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa020847 · Cited by 1,544
Electronic Alerts to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism among Hospitalized Patients
Kucher, N., Koo, S., Quiroz, R., Cooper, J. M., Paterno, M. D., Soukonnikov, B., & Goldhaber, S. Z. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa041533 · Cited by 944
Clinical Decision-Support Systems
Musen, M. A., Middleton, B., & Greenes, R. A. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4474-8_22 · Cited by 588
Physician Inpatient Order Writing on Microcomputer Workstations
Tierney, W. M. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.269.3.379 · Cited by 549
A Computerized Reminder System to Increase the Use of Preventive Care for Hospitalized Patients
Dexter, P. R., Perkins, S., Overhage, J. M., Maharry, K., Kohler, R. B., & McDonald, C. J. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa010181 · Cited by 519
Detecting Adverse Events Using Information Technology
Bates, D. W., Evans, R. S., Murff, H. J., Stetson, P. D., Pizziferri, L., & Hripcsak, G. M. (2003) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1074 · Cited by 467
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Canadian Institute for Health Information: Drug Expenditure in Canada 1985 to 2004. 2005, [http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H115-27-2004E.pdf]
- 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
The Impact of eHealth on the Quality and Safety of Health Care: A Systematic Overview
Black, A. D., Car, J., Pagliari, C., Anandan, C., Cresswell, K., Bokun, T., McKinstry, B., Procter, R., Majeed, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000387 · Cited by 1,442
Ross, J., Stevenson, F., Lau, R., & Murray, E. (2016) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0510-7 · Cited by 1,011
Mair, F. S., May, C., O’Donnell, C., Finch, T., Sullivan, F., & Murray, E. (2012) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.11.099424 · Cited by 553
Lau, R., Stevenson, F., Ong, B. N., Dziedzic, K., Treweek, S., Eldridge, S., Everitt, H., Kennedy, A., Qureshi, N., Rogers, A., et al. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0396-4 · Cited by 533
Roshanov, P. S., Fernandes, N., Wilczynski, J. M., Hemens, B. J., You, J. J., Handler, S. M., Nieuwlaat, R., Souza, N. M., Beyene, J., Spall, H. G. C. V., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f657 · Cited by 470
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)
- PMC
- PMC2667396
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
