OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the literature on clinical decision-support systems' (CDSS) impact on healthcare practitioner performance and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Literature search on Medline, Embase, Inspec, Cinahl, Cochrane/Dare and analysis of high-quality systematic reviews (SRs) on CDSS in hospital settings. Two-stage inclusion procedure: (1) selection of publications on predefined inclusion criteria; (2) independent methodological assessment of preincluded SRs by the 11-item measurement tool, AMSTAR. Inclusion of SRs with AMSTAR score 9 or above. SRs were thereafter rated on level of evidence. Each stage was performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: 17 out of 35 preincluded SRs were of high methodological quality and further analyzed. Evidence that CDSS significantly impacted practitioner performance was found in 52 out of 91 unique studies of the 16 SRs examining this effect (57%). Only 25 out of 82 unique studies of the 16 SRs reported evidence that CDSS positively impacted patient outcomes (30%). CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have found any benefits on patient outcomes, though many of these have been too small in sample size or too short in time to reveal clinically important effects. There is significant evidence that CDSS can positively impact healthcare providers' performance with drug ordering and preventive care reminder systems as most clear examples. These outcomes may be explained by the fact that these types of CDSS require a minimum of patient data that are largely available before the advice is (to be) generated: at the time clinicians make the decisions.
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the literature on clinical decision-support systems' (CDSS) impact on healthcare practitioner performance and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Literature search on Medline, Embase, Inspec, Cinahl, Cochrane/Dare and analysis of high-quality systematic reviews (SRs) on CDSS in hospital settings. Two-stage inclusion procedure: (1) selection of publications on predefined inclusion criteria; (2) independent methodological assessment of preincluded SRs by the 11-item measurement tool, AMSTAR. Inclusion of SRs with AMSTAR score 9 or above. SRs were thereafter rated on level of evidence. Each stage was performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: 17 out of 35 preincluded SRs were of high methodological quality and further analyzed. Evidence that CDSS significantly impacted practitioner performance was found in 52 out of 91 unique studies of the 16 SRs examining this effect (57%). Only 25 out of 82 unique studies of the 16 SRs reported evidence that CDSS positively impacted patient outcomes (30%). CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have found any benefits on patient outcomes, though many of these have been too small in sample size or too short in time to reveal clinically important effects. There is significant evidence that CDSS can positively impact healthcare providers' performance with drug ordering and preventive care reminder systems as most clear examples. These outcomes may be explained by the fact that these types of CDSS require a minimum of patient data that are largely available before the advice is (to be) generated: at the time clinicians make the decisions.
Authors: E Andrew Balas; Santosh Krishna; Rainer A Kretschmer; Thomas R Cheek; David F Lobach; Suzanne Austin Boren Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Chandra L Jackson; Shari Bolen; Frederick L Brancati; Marian L Batts-Turner; Tiffany L Gary Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-12-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Denitza P Blagev; Eliotte L Hirshberg; Katherine Sward; B Taylor Thompson; Roy Brower; Jonathon Truwit; Duncan Hite; Jay Steingrub; James F Orme; Terry P Clemmer; Lindell K Weaver; Frank Thomas; Colin K Grissom; Dean Sorenson; Dean F Sittig; C Jane Wallace; Thomas D East; Homer R Warner; Alan H Morris Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Robert B McDaniel; Jonathan D Burlison; Donald K Baker; Murad Hasan; Jennifer Robertson; Christine Hartford; Scott C Howard; Andras Sablauer; James M Hoffman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-10-24 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: F Perry Wilson; Michael Shashaty; Jeffrey Testani; Iram Aqeel; Yuliya Borovskiy; Susan S Ellenberg; Harold I Feldman; Hilda Fernandez; Yevgeniy Gitelman; Jennie Lin; Dan Negoianu; Chirag R Parikh; Peter P Reese; Richard Urbani; Barry Fuchs Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: John D Piette; K C Lun; Lincoln A Moura; Hamish S F Fraser; Patricia N Mechael; John Powell; Shariq R Khoja Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Hugo A J M de Wit; Carlota Mestres Gonzalvo; Kim P G M Hurkens; Wubbo J Mulder; Rob Janknegt; Frans R Verhey; Jos M G A Schols; Paul-Hugo M van der Kuy Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2013-10
Authors: Shruti Gangadhar; Nam Nguyen; James W Pesuit; Alina N Bogdanov; Lee Kallenbach; Jessica Ken; Joe Vasey; Richard M Loomis Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-04-16