David Blum1,2, Sunil X Raj3, Rolf Oberholzer4, Ingrid I Riphagen5, Florian Strasser6, Stein Kaasa7. 1. Faculty of Medicine, European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, University Hospital in Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway. david.blum@ntnu.no. 2. Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine NTNU, Faculty of Medicine, European Palliative Research Center, 7491, Trondheim, Norway. david.blum@ntnu.no. 3. Faculty of Medicine, European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, University Hospital in Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway. sunil.raj@ntnu.no. 4. Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. rolf.oberholzer@gmail.com. 5. Unit for Applied Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. Ingrid.i.riphagen@ntnu.no. 6. Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland. florian.strasser@kssg.ch. 7. Faculty of Medicine, European Palliative Care Research Centre (PRC), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, University Hospital in Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway. stein.kaasa@ntnu.no.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based treatment guidelines embedded in computer-based clinical decision support systems (CCDSS) may improve patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We systematically reviewed the literature for content and application of CCDSS, and their effects on PRO. METHODS: A systematic review in MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted according to PRISMA standards. Searches were limited to the publication period 1996-May 2014 and the English language. The search terms covered "computerized clinical decision systems" and "patient-reported outcomes". Screening and extraction was done independently by two reviewers according to predefined inclusion (computer and guideline) and exclusion criteria (no trial, no PRO). Study and CCDSS quality was rated according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: The database searches identified 1,331 references. Eighty-seven full-text articles were analyzed. The main reason for exclusion was no PRO as a study outcome measure. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 13,480 patients. Nine studies used a computerized device to fill in data; in four studies, this was used by the patients themselves. Most of the studies presented the data to the clinician at point of care and incorporated international guidelines. Three studies showed a positive effect on PRO, but only on symptoms. Overall, no negative effects were reported. There was no association with study quality or year of study publication. CONCLUSION: There are marginal positive effects of CCDSS on specific PRO. Factors that facilitate the use and effect are identified. Easy to use systems with difficult to ignore evidence-based advice need to be developed and tested.
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based treatment guidelines embedded in computer-based clinical decision support systems (CCDSS) may improve patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We systematically reviewed the literature for content and application of CCDSS, and their effects on PRO. METHODS: A systematic review in MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted according to PRISMA standards. Searches were limited to the publication period 1996-May 2014 and the English language. The search terms covered "computerized clinical decision systems" and "patient-reported outcomes". Screening and extraction was done independently by two reviewers according to predefined inclusion (computer and guideline) and exclusion criteria (no trial, no PRO). Study and CCDSS quality was rated according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: The database searches identified 1,331 references. Eighty-seven full-text articles were analyzed. The main reason for exclusion was no PRO as a study outcome measure. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 13,480 patients. Nine studies used a computerized device to fill in data; in four studies, this was used by the patients themselves. Most of the studies presented the data to the clinician at point of care and incorporated international guidelines. Three studies showed a positive effect on PRO, but only on symptoms. Overall, no negative effects were reported. There was no association with study quality or year of study publication. CONCLUSION: There are marginal positive effects of CCDSS on specific PRO. Factors that facilitate the use and effect are identified. Easy to use systems with difficult to ignore evidence-based advice need to be developed and tested.
Authors: Cyrille Delpierre; Lise Cuzin; Judith Fillaux; Muriel Alvarez; Patrice Massip; Thierry Lang Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: S L Du Pen; A R Du Pen; N Polissar; J Hansberry; B M Kraybill; M Stillman; J Panke; R Everly; K Syrjala Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anne Holbrook; Lehana Thabane; Karim Keshavjee; Lisa Dolovich; Bob Bernstein; David Chan; Sue Troyan; Gary Foster; Hertzel Gerstein Journal: CMAJ Date: 2009-07-07 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Michael D Murray; Lisa E Harris; J Marc Overhage; Xiao-Hua Zhou; George J Eckert; Faye E Smith; Nancy Nienaber Buchanan; Fredric D Wolinsky; Clement J McDonald; William M Tierney Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Pavel S Roshanov; Shikha Misra; Hertzel C Gerstein; Amit X Garg; Rolf J Sebaldt; Jean A Mackay; Lorraine Weise-Kelly; Tamara Navarro; Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Erik K Fromme; Emma B Holliday; Lillian M Nail; Karen S Lyons; Michelle R Hribar; Charles R Thomas Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Hilde Krogstad; Stine Marie Sundt-Hansen; Marianne Jensen Hjermstad; Liv Ågot Hågensen; Stein Kaasa; Jon Håvard Loge; Sunil X Raj; Aslak Steinsbekk; Kari Sand Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Pamala A Pawloski; Gabriel A Brooks; Matthew E Nielsen; Barbara A Olson-Bullis Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 11.908