Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 170

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The use and effectiveness of electronic clinical decision support tools in the ambulatory/primary care setting: a systematic review of the literature

Open access
Bryan, Cathy, Boren, Suzanne·2008·Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The 1999 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report To Err is Human alerted the healthcare industry and the public to the lack of consistency in the delivery of quality care to the US population. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have become a leading response to this report, and to the growing demand for the promotion of standards-based care delivery. The objective of this paper is to evaluate the recent literature for both the types and effectiveness of electronic CDSS in the primary care setting. METHODS: An electronic search of the literature was conducted utilising MEDLINE (1996-2006), CINAHL (1982-2006) and all EBM Reviews--Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE and CCTR. The search included various combinations of the MeSH search terms 'clinical decision support systems', 'primary health care', 'ambulatory care' and 'practice guidelines' and was limited to articles published from 2000 to 2006. Studies were selected for review if they involved either non-randomised observational or randomised controlled trials (RCTs) utilising CDSS as a single intervention, were performed in an ambulatory primary care setting and included quantifiable outcome measures. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in the review, including five non-randomised observational studies and 12 RCTs. Thirteen studies (76%) found either positive or variable outcomes related to CDSS intervention with four studies (24%) showing no significant effect. CONCLUSION: Although there is validation that CDSS has the potential to produce statistically significant improvement in outcomes, there is much variability among the types and methods of CDSS implementation and resulting effectiveness. As CDSS will likely continue to be at the forefront of the march toward effective standards-based care, more work needs to be done to determine effective implementation strategies for the use of CDSS across multiple settings and patient populations.

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 · 10.14236/jhi.v16i2.679

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 170

Metadata

Authors
Bryan, C., & Boren, S.
Venue
Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics
Publisher
Portico
Published
2008-07-01
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
79-91
ISSN
  • 1475-9985 (ISSN-L)
  • 2058-4555
OpenAlex
W2188171963
Cited by
170
References
2
FWCI
1.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The use and effectiveness of electronic clinical decision support tools in the ambulatory/primary care setting: a systematic review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.14236/jhi.v16i2.679
The paper
Bryan, C., & Boren, S. (2008). The use and effectiveness of electronic clinical decision support tools in the ambulatory/primary care setting: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics. https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v16i2.679

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.