OBJECTIVE: To describe the controversies and review the evidence about computer-aided prospective drug utilization review (PDUR) systems. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE search of the literature. STUDY SELECTION: Published studies of the effectiveness of computer-aided prescription screening. DATA SYNTHESIS: One randomized, controlled trial and four nonrandomized studies constitute the evidence base. The five studies are inconclusive with respect to whether computer-aided prescription screening causes health care providers to take action, either because of a no difference finding or because there was no comparison group. In the one randomized, controlled trial, a substantial number of actions were taken by the control group whose members did not receive alerts. No study evaluated the total effect of screening by in-store and payer (online) systems. Specific research recommendations are made to increase the evidence base. CONCLUSION: Limited and inconclusive evidence about whether these systems are effective and what system features are optimal may explain the wide variation among systems in terms of what problems are screened and may also explain clinicians' uncertainty about their value. A comprehensive national research agenda for reducing medical errors should include research on the effectiveness of computer-aided PDUR.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the controversies and review the evidence about computer-aided prospective drug utilization review (PDUR) systems. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE search of the literature. STUDY SELECTION: Published studies of the effectiveness of computer-aided prescription screening. DATA SYNTHESIS: One randomized, controlled trial and four nonrandomized studies constitute the evidence base. The five studies are inconclusive with respect to whether computer-aided prescription screening causes health care providers to take action, either because of a no difference finding or because there was no comparison group. In the one randomized, controlled trial, a substantial number of actions were taken by the control group whose members did not receive alerts. No study evaluated the total effect of screening by in-store and payer (online) systems. Specific research recommendations are made to increase the evidence base. CONCLUSION: Limited and inconclusive evidence about whether these systems are effective and what system features are optimal may explain the wide variation among systems in terms of what problems are screened and may also explain clinicians' uncertainty about their value. A comprehensive national research agenda for reducing medical errors should include research on the effectiveness of computer-aided PDUR.
Authors: Brian L Strom; Rita Schinnar; Warren Bilker; Sean Hennessy; Charles E Leonard; Eric Pifer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kim R Saverno; Lisa E Hines; Terri L Warholak; Amy J Grizzle; Lauren Babits; Courtney Clark; Ann M Taylor; Daniel C Malone Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Eric N van Roon; Sander Flikweert; Marianne le Comte; Pim N J Langendijk; Wilma J M Kwee-Zuiderwijk; Paul Smits; Jacobus R B J Brouwers Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2005 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Jörg Indermitte; Laura Erba; Marianne Beutler; Rudolf Bruppacher; Walter E Haefeli; Kurt E Hersberger Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Yu Ko; Jacob Abarca; Daniel C Malone; Donna C Dare; Doug Geraets; Antoun Houranieh; William N Jones; W Paul Nichol; Gregory P Schepers; Michelle Wilhardt Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-10-26 Impact factor: 4.497