Cited by 42Electronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Accuracy and Effects of Clinical Decision Support Systems Integrated with BMJ Best Practice–Aided Diagnosis: Interrupted Time Series Study

Open access
Tao, Liyuan, Zhang, Chen, Zeng, Lin, Zhu, Shengrong, Li, Nan, Li, Wei, Zhang, Hua, Zhao, Yiming +2 more·2020·JMIR Medical Informatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are an integral component of health information technologies and can assist disease interpretation, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. However, the utility of CDSS in the clinic remains controversial. Objective: The aim is to assess the effects of CDSS integrated with British Medical Journal (BMJ) Best Practice–aided diagnosis in real-world research. Methods: This was a retrospective, longitudinal observational study using routinely collected clinical diagnosis data from electronic medical records. A total of 34,113 hospitalized patient records were successively selected from December 2016 to February 2019 in six clinical departments. The diagnostic accuracy of the CDSS was verified before its implementation. A self-controlled comparison was then applied to detect the effects of CDSS implementation. Multivariable logistic regression and single-group interrupted time series analysis were used to explore the effects of CDSS. The sensitivity analysis was conducted using the subgroup data from January 2018 to February 2019. Results: The total accuracy rates of the recommended diagnosis from CDSS were 75.46% in the first-rank diagnosis, 83.94% in the top-2 diagnosis, and 87.53% in the top-3 diagnosis in the data before CDSS implementation. Higher consistency was observed between admission and discharge diagnoses, shorter confirmed diagnosis times, and shorter hospitalization days after the CDSS implementation (all P<.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the consistency rates after CDSS implementation (OR 1.078, 95% CI 1.015-1.144) and the proportion of hospitalization time 7 days or less (OR 1.688, 95% CI 1.592-1.789) both increased. The interrupted time series analysis showed that the consistency rates significantly increased by 6.722% (95% CI 2.433%-11.012%, P=.002) after CDSS implementation. The proportion of hospitalization time 7 days or less significantly increased by 7.837% (95% CI 1.798%-13.876%, P=.01). Similar results were obtained in the subgroup analysis. Conclusions: The CDSS integrated with BMJ Best Practice improved the accuracy of clinicians’ diagnoses. Shorter confirmed diagnosis times and hospitalization days were also found to be associated with CDSS implementation in retrospective real-world studies. These findings highlight the utility of artificial intelligence-based CDSS to improve diagnosis efficiency, but these results require confirmation in future randomized controlled trials.

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 · 10.2196/16912

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • Some CDSS can generate ranked lists of potential diagnoses for disease differentiation, including disease subtype classification or stages, to guide subsequent treatment planning.

    “Some CDSS can further generate ranked lists of potential diagnoses for disease differentiation [219,220,221], including disease subtype classification or stages, to guide subsequent treatment planning [222].”

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: 2

  1. [13]Holzinger A Kieseberg P Weippl E Tjoa A Current advances, trends and challenges of machine learning and knowledge extraction: from machine learning to explainable AI Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS 11015 2018 Cham, Switzerland Springer International Publishing 1 8
  2. [25]BMJ Best Practice https://bestpractice.bmj.com/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tao, L., Zhang, C., Zeng, L., Zhu, S., Li, N., Li, W., Zhang, H., Zhao, Y., Zhan, S., & Ji, H.
Affiliations
  • Peking University Third Hospital (CN)
  • Peking University (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhan, Siyan
Venue
JMIR Medical Informatics
Published
2020-01-20
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
e16912
ISSN
2291-9694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996547294
Cited by
42
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
clinical decision support systems, diagnostic accuracy, length of hospital stay, time to diagnosis, hospitalized patients, electronic health records, interrupted time series, health information technology, hospital resource utilization, patient safety

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