Anna Ostropolets1, Linying Zhang1, George Hripcsak1,2. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 2. NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A growing body of observational data enabled its secondary use to facilitate clinical care for complex cases not covered by the existing evidence. We conducted a scoping review to characterize clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that generate new knowledge to provide guidance for such cases in real time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, ProQuest, and IEEE Xplore were searched up to May 2020. The abstracts were screened by 2 reviewers. Full texts of the relevant articles were reviewed by the first author and approved by the second reviewer, accompanied by the screening of articles' references. The details of design, implementation and evaluation of included CDSSs were extracted. RESULTS: Our search returned 3427 articles, 53 of which describing 25 CDSSs were selected. We identified 8 expert-based and 17 data-driven tools. Sixteen (64%) tools were developed in the United States, with the others mostly in Europe. Most of the tools (n = 16, 64%) were implemented in 1 site, with only 5 being actively used in clinical practice. Patient or quality outcomes were assessed for 3 (18%) CDSSs, 4 (16%) underwent user acceptance or usage testing and 7 (28%) functional testing. CONCLUSIONS: We found a number of CDSSs that generate new knowledge, although only 1 addressed confounding and bias. Overall, the tools lacked demonstration of their utility. Improvement in clinical and quality outcomes were shown only for a few CDSSs, while the benefits of the others remain unclear. This review suggests a need for a further testing of such CDSSs and, if appropriate, their dissemination.
OBJECTIVE: A growing body of observational data enabled its secondary use to facilitate clinical care for complex cases not covered by the existing evidence. We conducted a scoping review to characterize clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that generate new knowledge to provide guidance for such cases in real time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, ProQuest, and IEEE Xplore were searched up to May 2020. The abstracts were screened by 2 reviewers. Full texts of the relevant articles were reviewed by the first author and approved by the second reviewer, accompanied by the screening of articles' references. The details of design, implementation and evaluation of included CDSSs were extracted. RESULTS: Our search returned 3427 articles, 53 of which describing 25 CDSSs were selected. We identified 8 expert-based and 17 data-driven tools. Sixteen (64%) tools were developed in the United States, with the others mostly in Europe. Most of the tools (n = 16, 64%) were implemented in 1 site, with only 5 being actively used in clinical practice. Patient or quality outcomes were assessed for 3 (18%) CDSSs, 4 (16%) underwent user acceptance or usage testing and 7 (28%) functional testing. CONCLUSIONS: We found a number of CDSSs that generate new knowledge, although only 1 addressed confounding and bias. Overall, the tools lacked demonstration of their utility. Improvement in clinical and quality outcomes were shown only for a few CDSSs, while the benefits of the others remain unclear. This review suggests a need for a further testing of such CDSSs and, if appropriate, their dissemination.
Authors: Marcus A Neubauer; J Russell Hoverman; Michael Kolodziej; Lonny Reisman; Stephen K Gruschkus; Susan Hoang; Albert A Alva; Marilyn McArthur; Michael Forsyth; Todd Rothermel; Roy A Beveridge Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2009-12-30 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Blanca Gallego; Scott R Walter; Richard O Day; Adam G Dunn; Vijay Sivaraman; Nigam Shah; Christopher A Longhurst; Enrico Coiera Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Lorenzo Moja; Koren H Kwag; Theodore Lytras; Lorenzo Bertizzolo; Linn Brandt; Valentina Pecoraro; Giulio Rigon; Alberto Vaona; Francesca Ruggiero; Massimo Mangia; Alfonso Iorio; Ilkka Kunnamo; Stefanos Bonovas Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Anna Ostropolets; Philip Zachariah; Patrick Ryan; Ruijun Chen; George Hripcsak Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-09-18 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Annebel Ten Broeke; Jan Hulscher; Nicolaas Heyning; Elisabeth Kooi; Caspar Chorus Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Kim L Bennell; Clare Bayram; Christopher Harrison; Caroline Brand; Rachelle Buchbinder; Romi Haas; Rana S Hinman Journal: Lancet Reg Health West Pac Date: 2021-06-09
Authors: Rohit B Sangal; Rachel B Liu; Kelsey O Cole; Craig Rothenberg; Andrew Ulrich; Deborah Rhodes; Arjun K Venkatesh Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 1.200