The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computerised reminders and feedback in medication management: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of computer-generated medication reminders or feedback directed to healthcare providers or patients. DATA SOURCES: Extensive computerised and manual literature searches identified 76 English-language reports of RCTs reported before 1 January 2002. Searches were conducted between June 1998 and April 2002. STUDY SELECTION: 26 papers making 29 comparisons (two papers reported on multiple interventions) of computer-supported medication management to a control group. DATA EXTRACTION: The quality of the RCTs was systematically assessed and scored independently by two reviewers. Rates of compliance with (potential) reminders for the control and intervention groups were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Heterogeneity of studies prevented a meta-analysis. Where possible, rates were calculated using the intention-to-treat principle. The comparisons were grouped into five areas. Reminders to providers in outpatient settings: six of 12 comparisons demonstrated positive effects (relative rates [RRs: intervention rates/control rates], 1.0 to 42.0). Provider feedback in outpatient settings: five of seven comparisons showed improved clinician behaviour (RRs, 1.0 to 2.5). Combined reminders and feedback in outpatient settings: the single comparison found no improvement. Reminders to providers in inpatient settings: three of five comparisons showed improvements (RRs, 1.0 to 2.1). Patient-directed reminders: two of four comparisons showed improvements in patient compliance. CONCLUSION: Reminders are more effective than feedback in modifying physician behaviour related to medication management. Patient-directed reminders can improve medication adherence.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Systematic reviews of electronic and paper-based clinical decision support across a range of clinical domains have demonstrated its effectiveness in changing clinicians' practices such as screening, test ordering and guideline adherence, 5 7-9 11-13 but there is no consistent translation into patient outcomes.11”
From Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake (2010) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“Systematic reviews have demonstrated that use of CDSSs for prescribing can reduce toxic drug levels and time to therapeutic control, 5 6 reduce medication errors 7 8 and change prescribing in accordance with guideline recommendations.9”
From Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake (2010) · cites this paper as [9]
Citations
Cites
Institute of Medicine (2000) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/9728 · Cited by 14,390
To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System
Hendee, W. R. (2001) · Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.1016/s1051-0443(01)70072-3 · Cited by 10,129
Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM
Sackett, D. L. (2000) · Cited by 5,950
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Guyatt, G. H. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.270.17.2096 · Cited by 3,083
Leape, L. L. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.272.23.1851 · Cited by 2,329
Leape, L. L. (1994) · PubMed · Cited by 1,961
Moher, D., Jadad, A. R., Nichol, G., Penman, M., Tugwell, P., & Walsh, S. (1995) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-w · Cited by 1,308
Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Guyatt, G. H. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.270.21.2598 · Cited by 1,185
Sackett, D. L. (1997) · Seminars in Perinatology · doi:10.1016/s0146-0005(97)80013-4 · Cited by 1,063
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- 10.1001/jama.1994.03520230061039 · DOI
- Austin SM, 1994, Proceedings for 18th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care; 1994 November 5–9, 121
- Bennett JW, 1993, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners 7th Computer Conference, 127
- Bennett JW, 1993, Proceedings of the Inaugural Health Informatics Conference; Brisbane, Australia; 1993 August 2–3, 228
- Walton RT, 2001, Cochrane Collaboration on Effective Professional Practice Module of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [updated March 2001]. Available in The Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Collaboration
- 10.1001/jama.1993.03510210084032 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1993.03500030077036 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chaudhry, B., Wang, J., Wu, S., Maglione, M., Mojica, W., Roth, E., Morton, S. C., & Shekelle, P. G. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-00125 · Cited by 3,159
“However, they have been limited to specific systems, such as computerized provider order entry (96); capabilities, such as computerized re-minders (97, 98); or clinical specialty (99).”
Kawamoto, K., Houlihan, C. A., Balas, E. A., & Lobach, D. F. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8f · Cited by 2,703
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
“Our final selection of 53 reviews provided the main empirical evidence base in relation to assessing the impact of the selected eHealth technologies (see Table 1 for our critical appraisal of these studies) [15–67], full details of which can be found in Table S2.”
Interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing practices in ambulatory care
Arnold, S. R., & Straus, S. E. (2005) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003539.pub2 · Cited by 741
Costs and benefits of health information technology.
Shekelle, P. G., Morton, S. C., & Keeler, E. B. (2006) · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcerta132 · Cited by 501
Metadata
- Authors
- Bennett, J. W., & Glasziou, P. P.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- ORCID
- Glasziou, Paul P
- Venue
- Medical Journal of Australia
- Publisher
- AMPCo
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 178
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 217-222
- ISSN
- 0025-729X (ISSN-L)
- 1326-5377
- OpenAlex
- W1548347845
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 2.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- The Medical Journal of Australia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
- Keywords
- provider feedback, medication management, medication adherence, clinician behavior, outpatient settings, inpatient settings
- MeSH terms
- Drug Therapy, Feedback, Humans, Outpatients, Patient Compliance, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Quality Control, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Reminder 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
