 |
|
Effects of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes
A Systematic Review
Amit X. Garg, MD;
Neill K. J. Adhikari, MD;
Heather McDonald, MSc;
M. Patricia Rosas-Arellano, MD, PhD;
P. J. Devereaux, MD;
Joseph Beyene, PhD;
Justina Sam, BHSc;
R. Brian Haynes, MD, PhD
JAMA. 2005;293:1223-1238.
ABSTRACT
| |
Context Developers of health care software have attributed improvements in patient care to these applications. As with any health care intervention, such claims require confirmation in clinical trials.
Objectives To review controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and to identify study characteristics predicting benefit.
Data Sources We updated our earlier reviews by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Inspec, and ISI databases and consulting reference lists through September 2004. Authors of 64 primary studies confirmed data or provided additional information.
Study Selection We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of a CDSS compared with care provided without a CDSS on practitioner performance or patient outcomes.
Data Extraction Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data on methods, setting, CDSS and patient characteristics, and outcomes.
Data Synthesis One hundred studies met our inclusion criteria. The number and methodologic quality of studies improved over time. The CDSS improved practitioner performance in 62 (64%) of the 97 studies assessing this outcome, including 4 (40%) of 10 diagnostic systems, 16 (76%) of 21 reminder systems, 23 (62%) of 37 disease management systems, and 19 (66%) of 29 drug-dosing or prescribing systems. Fifty-two trials assessed 1 or more patient outcomes, of which 7 trials (13%) reported improvements. Improved practitioner performance was associated with CDSSs that automatically prompted users compared with requiring users to activate the system (success in 73% of trials vs 47%; P = .02) and studies in which the authors also developed the CDSS software compared with studies in which the authors were not the developers (74% success vs 28%; respectively, P = .001).
Conclusions Many CDSSs improve practitioner performance. To date, the effects on patient outcomes remain understudied and, when studied, inconsistent.
INTRODUCTION
Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are information systems designed to improve clinical decision making. Characteristics of individual patients are matched to a computerized knowledge base, and software algorithms generate patient-specific recommendations. Practitioners, health care staff, or patients can manually enter patient characteristics into the computer system; alternatively, electronic medical records can be queried for retrieval of patient characteristics. Computer-generated recommendations are delivered to the clinician through the electronic medical record, by pager, or through printouts placed in a patient’s paper chart. Such systems have been developed for a myriad of clinical issues, including diagnosis of chest pain, treatment of infertility, and timely administration of immunizations. These systems provide several modes of decision support, including alerts of critical values, reminders of overdue preventive health tasks, advice for drug prescribing, critiques of existing health care orders, and suggestions for various active care issues.
As with any health care innovation, CDSSs should be rigorously evaluated before widespread dissemination into clinical practice. Various stages in this assessment process have been previously described. Iterative qualitative and quantitative assessment begin early in the software development cycle.1-2 When preliminary testing suggests that a CDSS improves clinical care or patient outcomes, confirmatory controlled trials are warranted. We previously reviewed controlled trials of computer-aided quality assurance3 and CDSSs published up to 19924 and 1998.5 This field is rapidly evolving because of technological advances, increasing access to computer systems in clinical practice, and growing concern about the process and quality of medical care. We therefore updated previous reviews to provide a cumulative summary of controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of CDSSs on practitioner performance and patient outcomes.
METHODS
Research Questions
The primary questions of this review were (1) Do CDSSs improve practitioner performance or patient outcomes? and (2) Which CDSS and study-level factors are associated with effective CDSSs? A priori, we hypothesized that studies reporting better outcomes would assess CDSSs that automatically prompted users (vs requiring the user to actively initiate the system), were built into an electronic medical record or computer order entry system (vs a stand-alone system), provided reminders (vs information on disease management, drug dosing, or diagnosis), were tested using less rigorous study methods, were studied by their software developers (vs by evaluators not involved in the CDSS design), described pilot testing, and described user training.
Studies Eligible for Review
We included English-language randomized and nonrandomized trials with a contemporaneous control group that compared patient care with a CDSS to routine care without a CDSS and evaluated clinical performance (ie, a measure of process of care) or a patient outcome. We stipulated that the CDSS had to provide patient-specific advice that was reviewed by a health care practitioner before any clinical action. Studies were excluded if the system (1) was used solely by medical students, (2) only provided summaries of patient information, (3) provided feedback on groups of patients without individual assessment, (4) only provided computer-aided instruction, or (5) was used for image analysis. Studies assessing CDSS diagnostic performance against a defined gold standard were not included in this review unless clinical use of the diagnostic CDSS was also compared with routine care. Based on these criteria, we reevaluated all studies from our previous reviews for inclusion.
Finding Relevant Studies
We have previously described our methods for finding relevant studies until March 1998.5 For this update, we examined citations from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Reviews databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal Club, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Inspec bibliographic databases from 1998 through September 2004. All citations were downloaded into Reference Manager, version 10.0 (Thomson ISI ResearchSoft, Philadelphia, Pa). An experienced librarian developed the search strategies using sensitive terms for identifying clinical studies of CDSSs. We pilot-tested search strategies and modified them to ensure that they identified known eligible articles. The final strategies used the terms computer-assisted decision making, computer-assisted diagnosis, computer-assisted therapy, decision support systems, reminder systems, hospital information systems, randomized controlled trial, and cohort studies (complete strategies available from the authors). Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of all studies identified in our search. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer or by consensus. Full-text articles were retrieved if any reviewer considered a citation potentially relevant. Supplementary methods of finding studies included a review of article reference lists, articles citing included studies as listed in the Science Citation Index, PubMed related articles feature, informatics conference proceedings, information provided by primary study authors, and other recent reviews.6-11 Where data from a trial were distributed in more than 1 publication, we cited the principal publication.
Data Abstraction
Pairs of reviewers independently abstracted the following data from all studies meeting eligibility criteria: study setting, study methods, CDSS characteristics, patient characteristics, and outcomes. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer or by consensus. We attempted to contact primary authors of all included studies to confirm data and provide missing data.
All studies were scored for methodological quality on a 10-point scale consisting of 5 potential sources of bias, which we have described elsewhere.5 In brief, we considered the method of allocation to study groups (random, 2, vs quasi-random, 1, vs selected concurrent controls, 0), the unit of the allocation (a cluster such as a practice, 2, vs physician, 1, vs patient, 0), the presence of baseline differences between the groups that were potentially linked to study outcomes (of particular importance for observational studies; no baseline differences present or appropriate statistical adjustments made for differences, 2, vs baseline differences present and no statistical adjustments made, 1, vs baseline characteristics not reported, 0), the objectivity of the outcome (objective outcomes or subjective outcomes with blinded assessment, 2, vs subjective outcomes with no blinding but clearly defined assessment criteria, 1, vs subjective outcomes with no blinding and poorly defined, 0), and the completeness of follow-up for the appropriate unit of analysis (>90%, 2, vs 80 to 90%, 1, vs <80% or not described, 0). The unit of allocation was included because of the possibility of group contamination in trials in which interventions were applied to clinicians even though individual patients were allocated to the intervention and control groups.12 Contamination bias would lead to underestimating the effect of a CDSS.
The studies substantially differed in the type and number of outcomes assessed. In addition, the majority of studies did not define a single outcome for statistical testing. We aimed to efficiently summarize the benefits of CDSSs and to identify CDSS and study characteristics that predicted success. For a given study we abstracted all reported practitioner performance and patient health outcomes. Situations where the CDSS worsened outcomes were rare. Thus, for each study we defined the effects of CDSSs in terms of success, defined as an improvement in at least 50% of outcomes measured, each at a 2-sided significance level less than .05.
Statistical Analysis
Reviewer agreement on study eligibility was quantified using the Cohen  .13 Study and CDSS characteristics predicting success were analyzed and interpreted with the study as the unit of analysis. Data were summarized using descriptive summary measures, including proportions for categorical variables and mean (standard deviation) for continuous variables. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models, adjusted for study methodological quality, were used to investigate associations between the outcomes of interest and study-specific covariates defined in our a priori hypotheses. All analyses were carried out using the SAS statistical package, version 8.2 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). We interpreted P .05 as indicating statistical significance; all P values are 2-sided. When reporting results from individual studies, we cited the measures of association and P values reported in the studies.
RESULTS
Finding and Selecting Studies
From 3997 screened citations, we retrieved 226 full-text articles, and 100 trials met our criteria for review. The chance-corrected agreement between 2 independent reviewers for article inclusion was good ( = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.88).
Description of Studies
The 100 trials examined more than 3826 practitioners or practices (median, 42; range, 2-300 [when reported]) caring for more than 92 895 patients (median, 488; range, 19-12 989 [when reported]) from 1973 to 2004.14-57 58-113 The number of eligible trials increased with time: 1 in 1970-1974, 4 in 1975-1979, 10 in 1980-1984, 13 in 1985-1989, 20 in 1990-1994, 26 in 1995-1999, and 26 in 2000–September 2004. Of these 100 trials, most were conducted in the United States (69%), followed by the United Kingdom (14%), Canada (5%), Australia (4%), Italy (2%), and Austria, France, Germany, Israel, Norway, and Switzerland (1% each). Sixty-nine percent of trials described funding from the public sector and 16% from the private sector. Developers of CDSS software were also study authors in 72% of trials. Ninety-seven trials described the effect of CDSS on at least 1 measure of health care practitioner performance. Fifty-two trials assessed at least 1 patient outcome. We successfully contacted authors of 91 trials, and authors of 64 trials provided additional information or confirmed the accuracy of abstracted data.15-18,20-21,24-33,35-40,42-43,46-47,49, 51-52,56, 60-64,67-68,71, 73-75,80-81,83-98,101, 106, 113-115
Methodological Quality Assessment
Trial methodological rigor increased with time—36% of trials before the year 2000 were cluster randomized, compared with 67% after this time (P = .01). Of all trials, 88% were randomized. Of the randomized trials, 49% were cluster randomized and 40% used a cluster as the unit of analysis or adjusted for clustering in the analysis. Twenty-four randomized trials and 1 cohort study reported a power calculation for a prespecifed difference between groups on a specific outcome. Fifteen of these trials (60%) calculated sample size based on a practitioner performance outcome, 9 (36%) based on a patient outcome, and 1 (4%) based on the cost of prescribed medications. Only 2 studies examined patient outcomes without measuring practitioner performance. Of the 88 randomized trials, 52% described an appropriate method of generating random numbers and 28% reported allocation concealment. On the 10-point methods scale, the mean score was 7 (SD, 1.7) and the range was 2 to 10.
Description of Users and CDSSs
The 100 trials had the following characteristics: 92% of trials enrolled physicians as primary users, 48% enrolled training health care practitioners (interns and residents) as users, 34% described pilot testing with users prior to implementation, 42% described user instructional training at the time of implementation, 76% took place in academic centers, and 33% were inpatient-based. In 47% of studies, the CDSS was part of an electronic medical record or computer order entry system. Most of these were early generation systems lacking the full functionality of current systems. In 15% of studies, the CDSS had a graphical user interface. Feedback from the CDSS occurred at the time of patient care in 88% of studies; in 60% the user was automatically prompted to use the system (vs the user actively initiating the system), and in 91% the CDSS suggested new orders (vs critiquing existing orders). Expert physician opinion or clinical practice guidelines usually formed the knowledge base for the CDSS.
The process of data entry into the CDSS was clear in 80% of trials, some of which used more than 1 method. Existing personnel most often entered data (attending or training physician, 38%; other health care staff [eg, nurses, clerks], 29%), although many trials used staff paid by research funds (21%) or automated data capture from an electronic medical record (30%). The method of delivering computer recommendations to the clinician was clear in 81% of trials. Most CDSSs directly provided the recommendation on a computer screen viewed by the practitioner (41% of all trials) or generated printed reports that were placed in medical charts by health care staff (29%) or by staff paid by research funds (16%). Only 13% of trials evaluated the impact of the CDSS on clinician workflow, with more than half of these CDSSs requiring more time and effort from the user compared with paper-based methods.
Systems for Diagnosis
There were 10 trials evaluating diagnostic systems (Table 1). All studies measured practitioner performance, and the CDSS was beneficial in 4 studies (40%). Two of the 4 successful CDSSs were diagnostic systems for cardiac ischemia in the emergency department, and these decreased the rate of unnecessary hospital or coronary care admissions by 15% (P<.05).18, 20 The third increased mood disorder screening in a posttraumatic stress disorder clinic by 25% (P = .008).15 The fourth improved the time to diagnosis of acute bowel obstruction (1 hour when computer was used vs 16 hours when diagnosis was made with contrast radiography; P<.001).23 Of the 5 trials assessing patient outcomes, none reported an improvement.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Trials of Computer-Assisted Diagnosis*
|
|
|
Reminder Systems for Prevention
There were 21 trials evaluating reminder systems for prevention (Table 2). All trials measured practitioner performance, and the CDSS was beneficial in 16 studies (76%). Performance outcomes were usually rates of screening, counseling, vaccination, testing, medication use, or the identification of at-risk behaviors. Successful use of CDSSs was typically demonstrated in ambulatory care, although 1 system was successful in hospitalized patients.44 The single trial measuring patient outcomes failed to demonstrate an improvement in the primary analysis.34 Post hoc subgroup analyses, however, demonstrated a significant reduction in winter hospitalization and emergency department visits in patients eligible for pneumococcal or influenza vaccination. One trial examined the effect of adding a cervical cancer screening reminder to an existing mammography reminder system.30 This trial suggested no interaction between the 2 reminders on screening efficacy.
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Trials of Computer-Assisted Reminders for Cancer Screening, Vaccination, and Other Types of Preventive Care
|
|
|
Systems for Disease Management
There were 40 studies of CDSSs for active health conditions. These CDSSs improved practitioner performance in 23 (62%) of 37 studies evaluating this outcome. Of the 27 trials measuring patient outcomes, 5 (18%) demonstrated improvements.
For diabetes care, practitioner performance was usually judged by rates of retinal, foot, urine protein, blood pressure, and cholesterol examinations, with 5 (71%) of 7 trials reporting improvements (Table 3). Similarly, in studies of cardiovascular prevention, performance was judged by blood pressure and cholesterol assessment, identification of smoking, and use of cardioprotective medications, with 5 (38%) of 13 trials reporting improvements (Table 4). One CDSS provided electrocardiogram recommendations to improve thrombolytic prescribing in emergency departments.61 Other CDSSs varied in purpose, providing recommendations for urinary incontinence, human immunodeficiency virus infection management, functional assessment, and acute respiratory distress syndrome, with 6 of 9 reporting improvements (Table 5). Clinical decision support system corollary orders were used to monitor the effects of other prescribed treatments, such as the need for renal biochemistry measurements in patients receiving amphotericin B,79 with all 4 trials reporting improvements (Table 6). Trials testing CDSS performance to reduce unnecessary health care utilization measured the frequency of redundant testing and unnecessary hospital admissions and hospital length of stay, with 3 of 4 trials reporting improvements (Table 6).
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Trials of Computer-Assisted Diabetes Management*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 4. Trials of Computer-Assisted Cardiovascular Disease Management and Prevention*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 5. Trials of Computer-Assisted Management for Other Active Health Conditions*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 6. Trials of Computer Use to Monitor the Effects of Other Prescribed Treatments (Corollary Orders) or to Reduce Unnecessary Health Care Utilization*
|
|
|
Five CDSSs (18%) examining patient outcomes described improvements. One CDSS improved blood pressure control (70% of patients had controlled blood pressure with CDSS use vs 52% with routine care; P<.05).54 A second CDSS reduced urinary incontinence in nursing home residents over a 10-week period (23% incontinent with CDSS vs 69% with routine care; P<.01).66 A third CDSS improved scores of barotrauma (P<.001) and organ dysfunction (P = .04) in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.70 One participating center in this trial provided data demonstrating lower tidal volumes (P.03) and a reduction in exposure to high plateau pressures in the group receiving CDSS-guided mechanical ventilation (P<.001).114 A fourth CDSS reduced patient-reported asthma exacerbations (8% vs 17%; odds ratio, [OR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85), emergency nebulizer use (1% vs 5%; OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.01-0.91), and the need for additional consultations for asthma management (22% vs 34%; OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.95) over 6 months.73 A fifth CDSS reduced hospital length of stay (P = .02) for patients with a variety of general medical diagnoses.83
In post hoc secondary or subgroup analyses, some trials described statistically significant improvements in thrombolytic prescribing with the CDSS,61 as well as patient outcomes of disease-specific emergency department visits,65 hospital length of stay,45, 54, 116-117 body weight,54, 116-117 diastolic blood pressure,59, 115, 118 serum lipids,51, 58 and a reduced estimated risk of future cardiovascular events.58
Systems for Drug Dosing and Drug Prescribing
There were 29 trials of drug dosing and prescribing (Table 7 and Table 8). Single-drug dosing improved practitioner performance in 15 (62%) of 24 studies, and 2 of the 18 systems assessing patient outcomes reported an improvement (Table 7 and Table 8). Another 5 systems used computer order entry for multidrug prescribing (Table 8). Four of these systems improved practitioner performance, but none improved patient outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Table 7. Trials of Computer-Assisted Anticoagulant Dosing*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 8. Trials of Computer-Assisted Drug Dosing and Prescribing*
|
|
|
The 24 single-drug dosing systems ranged from a simple calculator for parenteral nutrition to more complex algorithms that considered the pharmacokinetics of warfarin, aminoglycosides, or theophylline. Most studies evaluated the serum drug level in medications with a high risk of toxicity. In a study of heparin dosing for patients receiving thrombolysis for myocardial infarction, the proportion of individuals with an adverse thrombotic or cardiac event was significantly lowered with the CDSS (0/25 with the CDSS vs 6/26 in usual care; P = .02).97 One warfarin-dosing CDSS reduced hospital length of stay from 20 to 13 days (P = .01).87 Two systems reduced hospital length of stay in patients receiving theophylline (from 8.7 to 6.3 days; P = .03)98 and aminoglycosides (20.3 to 16.0 days; P = .03),104 although the majority of patient outcomes measured were not improved in these trials.
Study Factors Associated With CDSS Success
Given sparse data for patient outcomes, we only assessed study-level predictors of improved practitioner performance. Studies in which users were automatically prompted to use the system described better performance compared with studies in which users had to actively initiate the system (success in 44/60 studies [73%] vs 17/36 studies [47%]; P = .02; unadjusted OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.2-6.6; OR adjusted for methodological quality, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2-7.1). Similarly, studies in which the authors also created the CDSS reported better performance compared with those in which the trialists were independent of the CDSS development process (success in 51/69 studies [74%] vs 5/18 studies [28%]; P = .001; unadjusted OR, 6.7; 95% CI, 1.7-25.3; OR adjusted for methodological quality, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.7-26.7). No other predefined study-level covariate was associated with CDSS success. In a post hoc analysis of the 85 studies that measured practitioner performance and enrolled physicians, we did not find an association (P = .40) between performance and physician experience (trainee vs attending physician).
COMMENT
We identified 100 randomized and nonrandomized trials testing a wide variety of CDSSs, with the number of trials and their methodological quality increasing over time. Of the 97 controlled trials assessing practitioner performance, the majority (64%) improved diagnosis, preventive care, disease management, drug dosing, or drug prescribing. However, the effects of these systems on patient health remain understudied—and inconsistent when studied. Fifty-two trials assessed patient outcomes, often in a limited capacity without adequate statistical power to detect clinically important differences. Only 7 trials reported improved patient outcomes with the CDSS, and no study reported benefits for major outcomes such as mortality. Surrogate patient outcomes such as blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin were not meaningfully improved in most studies.
Determinants of CDSS Success
Recent literature has called for a better understanding of factors that predict CDSS success.119 Barriers to implementation include failure of practitioners to use the CDSS, poor usability or integration into practitioner workflow, or practitioner nonacceptance of computer recommendations.120 In our review, studies in which users were automatically prompted to use the system described better performance compared with studies in which users were required to actively initiate the system. A similar finding was also reported in a meta-regression of 11 studies of computer order entry.121 Compared with manual initiation, automatic prompting may improve integration into practitioner workflow as well as provide better opportunities to correct inadvertent deficiencies in care. In this review, we also identified better performance in studies in which the trial authors also developed the CDSS software. Potential explanations of this finding include the motivational effect of a developer’s enthusiasm, creation of more usable and integrated software, better access to technical support and training, improved on-site promotion and tailoring, biases in assessing outcomes, and selective publication of successful trials. Most of the CDSSs in this review were "home grown," and the importance of local champions to facilitate implementation cannot be underestimated.
Strengths and Weaknesses of This Review
We identified relevant controlled trials through a comprehensive search of the literature. We extended our previous review from 1998 in a number of important ways.5 Using better-defined inclusion criteria, we reconsidered all prior articles and identified 37 new articles. To identify CDSS and study characteristics that predicted positive effects, we abstracted relevant data from all articles in duplicate, confirmed our abstractions with a majority of primary authors, and conducted a multivariable analysis of study-level covariates.
However, limitations of this review should be appreciated. We included only English-language studies. The CDSSs were grouped into categories based on clinical applications rather than on other aspects of CDSS design.122 Although trial methods are improving with time, this summary is limited by the methods used in the primary studies. We were unable to use meta-analysis to pool effect sizes, given substantial differences among primary studies in the types of CDSSs and outcomes evaluated. In addition, we defined improvement as a positive effect on at least 50% of outcomes measured. This approach, along with the strict inclusion criteria of this review, may have underestimated the influence of some system and study methodological factors on CDSS success. The wide confidence intervals for the statistically significant determinants of CDSS success imply substantial imprecision in the strength of these associations, which may be noncausal. Furthermore, it is possible that CDSSs for disease management promoted the implementation of ineffective therapies, or that CDSSs of drug dosing used incorrect pharmacokinetic models. Although this appears to be an unlikely explanation for the lack of effect on patient outcomes, we did not evaluate the appropriateness of CDSS algorithms or recommendations. Finally, we summarized controlled trials of CDSSs and did not consider less rigorous but more common designs, such as before-after studies.
When to Adopt a CDSS for Practice
The decision to adopt a CDSS for local patient care is complex and is influenced by many considerations. Those responsible for CDSS implementation are typically administrators, information technology managers, and clinicians, all of whom are increasingly pushed by technology and guided by government regulations.123 Important issues include CDSS user acceptance, workflow integration, compatibility with legacy applications, system maturity, and upgrade availability. Some are concerned about increased practitioner dependence on CDSSs, with eroded capacity for independent decision making.31 Finally, cheaper, noncomputerized alternatives may be equally or more effective in improving care and reducing medical errors.124-127
One of the primary considerations in adopting a CDSS is its clinical effectiveness: To what extent should it be proven beneficial before mass deployment? Clearly, some testing is required, as a CDSS can have unanticipated effects when used in patient care.85 Some highlight the need for multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trials demonstrating improvements in important patient outcomes.12 Using such a standard, this review suggests that the majority of available systems are not yet ready for mainstream use. Most trials were unable to enroll enough clusters or patients for adequate statistical power to detect improvements in patient outcomes. Unfortunately, this situation is unlikely to change soon, given the substantial time and resources needed to conduct such trials, particularly in the area of preventive health. Furthermore, CDSSs are limited by the cumulative knowledge used to program their recommendations. It would be unrealistic to require repeat CDSS testing every time advances in the knowledge base become available. Thus, for initial consideration, it may be reasonable to require proof of CDSS effectiveness only on practitioner performance, particularly if such outcomes represent current accepted standards in care. In our review, many systems met this requirement. However, this does not preclude the need for subsequent trials or in-practice assessment to confirm system performance in improving patient health. Institutions need to measure effects on local outcomes and be prepared to iteratively modify their system in response to practice-based knowledge.2
While some perceive that CDSSs improve efficiency and reduce costs, the current supporting evidence is limited. Although some studies have assessed the costs when outcomes were improved,40, 45, 79-81,84, 128 the cost-effectiveness of these systems remains unknown. Many studies suggested the CDSS was inefficient, requiring more time and effort from the user compared with paper-based methods.14-15,38, 64, 81, 95, 112 Finally, most CDSSs used research funding to facilitate implementation. As highlighted in this review, up to 21% of trials used staff paid by research funds for data entry or CDSS recommendation delivery. When investing in a commercially available system, funding for support personnel is an additional cost to be considered.
There is currently widespread enthusiasm for introducing electronic medical records, computerized physician order entry systems, and CDSSs into hospitals and outpatient settings. In other commercial, industrial, and scientific spheres of activity, computers have become ubiquitous and have improved safety, productivity, and timeliness. Given this progress, computerization of the health care environment should offer tremendous benefits. However, uptake has been slow, and multiple challenges have arisen at every phase of software development, testing, and implementation. The progress of CDSSs has mirrored these trends. Systems are proliferating, their technical performance and usability are improving, and the number and quality of evaluations is increasing. These evaluations have shown that many CDSSs improve practitioner performance. However, further research is needed to elucidate the effects of such systems on patient health.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author: R. Brian Haynes, MD, PhD, Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1200 Main St W, Room 2C10B, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8N 3Z5 (bhaynes{at}mcmaster.ca).
Author Contributions: Drs Garg, Adhikari, and Rosas-Arellano had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study concept and design: Garg, Adhikari, Haynes.
Acquisition of data: Garg, Adhikari, McDonald, Rosas-Arellano, Sam, Haynes.
Analysis and interpretation of data: Garg, Adhikari, McDonald, Rosas-Arellano, Devereaux, Beyene, Sam, Haynes.
Drafting of the manuscript: Garg, Adhikari, Haynes.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Garg, Adhikari, McDonald, Rosas-Arellano, Devereaux, Beyene, Sam, Haynes.
Statistical analysis: Garg, Adhikari, Beyene.
Obtained funding: Garg, Haynes.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Garg, Rosas-Arellano, Haynes.
Study supervision: Garg, Haynes.
Financial Disclosures: None reported.
Funding/Support: Dr Garg was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Clinician Scientist Training Award. Dr Devereaux was supported by a CIHR Senior Research Fellowship.
Role of the Sponsors: No funding source or sponsor had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
Acknowledgment: We acknowledge the work of Linda Sheridan, who provided administrative help, and Tom Flemming, the librarian who helped with the literature searches. We thank Dereck Hunt, MD, MSc, and William Clark, MD, for their help and support.
Author Affiliations: Division of Nephrology (Drs Garg and Rosas-Arellano) and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Dr Garg), University of Western Ontario, London; Departments of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Drs Garg, Adhikari, Devereaux, and Haynes and Ms McDonald) and Medicine (Drs Devereaux and Haynes), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences Centre and Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care (Dr Adhikari), Population Health Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children (Dr Beyene), and Faculty of Medicine (Ms Sam), University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Wyatt J, Spiegelhalter D. Evaluating medical expert systems: what to test and how? Med Inform (Lond). 1990;15:205-217.
PUBMED
2. Sim I, Gorman P, Greenes RA, et al. Clinical decision support systems for the practice of evidence-based medicine. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8:527-534.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. Haynes RB, Walker CJ. Computer-aided quality assurance. Arch Intern Med. 1987;147:1297-1301.
FREE FULL TEXT
4. Johnston ME, Langton KB, Haynes RB, Mathieu A. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcome. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:135-142.
FREE FULL TEXT
5. Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 1998;280:1339-1346.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1409-1416.
FREE FULL TEXT
7. Payne TH. Computer decision support systems. Chest. 2000;118:47S-52S.
FREE FULL TEXT
8. Shiffman RN, Liaw Y, Brandt CA, Corb GJ. Computer-based guideline implementation systems: a systematic review of functionality and effectiveness. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6:104-114.
FREE FULL TEXT
9. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications—clinical decision support systems literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2001;64:15-37.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
10. Gordon RB, Grimshaw JM, Eccles M, Rowe RE, Wyatt JC. On-screen computer reminders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1998;2:CD001096.
11. Mitchell E, Sullivan F. A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-97. BMJ. 2001;322:279-282.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Chuang JH, Hripcsak G, Heitjan DF. Design and analysis of controlled trials in naturally clustered environments: implications for medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9:230-238.
FREE FULL TEXT
13. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33:613-619.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
14. Lewis G, Sharp D, Bartholomew J, Pelosi AJ. Computerized assessment of common mental disorders in primary care: effect on clinical outcome. Fam Pract. 1996;13:120-126.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. Cannon DS, Allen SN. A comparison of the effects of computer and manual reminders on compliance with a mental health clinical practice guideline. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7:196-203.
FREE FULL TEXT
16. Schriger DL, Gibbons PS, Langone CA, Lee S, Altshuler LL. Enabling the diagnosis of occult psychiatric illness in the emergency department: a randomized, controlled trial of the computerized, self-administered PRIME-MD diagnostic system. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;37:132-140.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
17. Rollman BL, Hanusa BH, Lowe HJ, et al. A randomized trial using computerized decision support to improve treatment of major depression in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:493-503.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
18. Pozen MW, D’Agostino RB, Selker HP, Sytkowski PA, Hood WB. A predictive instrument to improve coronary-care-unit admission practices in acute ischemic heart disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1273-1278.
ABSTRACT
19. Wyatt JR. Lessons learnt from the field trial of ACORN, an expert system to advise on chest pain. In: Barber B, Cao D, Quin D, Wagner G, eds. Proceedings of the 6th World Conference on Medical Informatics; Singapore; 1989:111-115.
20. Selker HP, Beshansky JR, Griffith JL, et al. Use of the acute cardiac ischemia time-insensitive predictive instrument (ACI-TIPI) to assist with triage of patients with chest pain or other symptoms suggestive of acute cardiac ischemia: a multicenter, controlled clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:845-855.
FREE FULL TEXT
21. Wexler JR, Swender PT, Tunnessen WWJ, Oski FA. Impact of a system of computer-assisted diagnosis. AJDC. 1975;129:203-205.
FREE FULL TEXT
22. Wellwood J, Johannessen S, Spiegelhalter DJ. How does computer-aided diagnosis improve the management of acute abdominal pain? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1992;74:40-46.
ISI
| PUBMED
23. Bogusevicius A, Maleckas A, Pundzius J, Skaudickas D. Prospective randomised trial of computer-aided diagnosis and contrast radiography in acute small bowel obstruction. Eur J Surg. 2002;168:78-83.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
24. Turner BJ, Day SC, Borenstein B. A controlled trial to improve delivery of preventive care: physician or patient reminders? J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4:403-409.
ISI
| PUBMED
25. McPhee SJ, Bird JA, Jenkins CN, Fordham D. Promoting cancer screening: a randomized, controlled trial of three interventions. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:1866-1872.
FREE FULL TEXT
26. McPhee SJ, Bird JA, Fordham D, Rodnick JE, Osborn EH. Promoting cancer prevention activities by primary care physicians: results of a randomized, controlled trial. JAMA. 1991;266:538-544.
FREE FULL TEXT
27. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, George J, et al. Promoting screening mammography in inner-city settings: a randomized controlled trial of computerized reminders as a component of a program to facilitate mammography. Med Care. 1994;32:609-624.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
28. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, George J, Simon MS, Dews P, Moncrease A. The effect of patient and physician reminders on use of screening mammography in a health maintenance organization: results of a randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 1996;78:1708-1721.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
29. Burack RC, Gimotty PA. Promoting screening mammography in inner-city settings: the sustained effectiveness of computerized reminders in a randomized controlled trial. Med Care. 1997;35:921-931.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
30. Burack RC, Gimotty PA, Simon M, et al. The effect of adding Pap smear information to a mammography reminder system in an HMO: results of randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2003;36:547-554.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
31. Chambers CV, Balaban DJ, Carlson BL, Grasberger DM. The effect of microcomputer-generated reminders on influenza vaccination rates in a university-based family practice center. J Am Board Fam Pract. 1991;4:19-26.
32. Flanagan JR, Doebbeling BN, Dawson J, Beekmann S. Randomized study of online vaccine reminders in adult primary care. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:755-759.
PUBMED
33. Tang PC, LaRosa MP, Newcomb C, Gorden SM. Measuring the effects of reminders for outpatient influenza immunizations at the point of clinical opportunity. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6:115-121.
FREE FULL TEXT
34. McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Smith DM, et al. Reminders to physicians from an introspective computer medical record: a two-year randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 1984;100:130-138.
FREE FULL TEXT
35. Tierney WM, Hui SL, McDonald CJ. Delayed feedback of physician performance versus immediate reminders to perform preventive care: effects on physician compliance. Med Care. 1986;24:659-666.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
36. Ornstein SM, Garr DR, Jenkins RG, Rust PF, Arnon A. Computer-generated physician and patient reminders: tools to improve population adherence to selected preventive services. J Fam Pract. 1991;32:82-90.
ISI
| PUBMED
37. Rosser WW, McDowell I, Newell C. Use of reminders for preventive procedures in family medicine. CMAJ. 1991;145:807-814.
ABSTRACT
38. Tape TG, Campbell JR. Computerized medical records and preventive health care: success depends on many factors. Am J Med. 1993;94:619-625.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
39. Turner RC, Peden JGJ, O’Brien K. Patient-carried card prompts vs computer-generated prompts to remind private practice physicians to perform health maintenance measures. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:1957-1960.
FREE FULL TEXT
40. Frame PS, Zimmer JG, Werth PL, et al. Computer-based vs manual health maintenance tracking: a controlled trial. Arch Fam Med. 1994;3:581-588.
FREE FULL TEXT
41. Overhage JM, Tierney WM, McDonald CJ. Computer reminders to implement preventive care guidelines for hospitalized patients. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:1551-1556.
FREE FULL TEXT
42. Bonevski B, Sanson-Fisher RW, Campbell E, Carruthers A, Reid AL, Ireland M. Randomized controlled trial of a computer strategy to increase general practitioner preventive care. Prev Med. 1999;29:478-486.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
43. Demakis JG, Beauchamp C, Cull WL, et al. Improving residents’ compliance with standards of ambulatory care: results from the VA Cooperative Study on Computerized Reminders. JAMA. 2000;284:1411-1416.
FREE FULL TEXT
44. Dexter PR, Perkins S, Overhage JM, Maharry K, Kohler RB, McDonald CJ. A computerized reminder system to increase the use of preventive care for hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:965-970.
FREE FULL TEXT
45. Thomas JC, Moore A, Qualls PE. The effect on cost of medical care for patients treated with an automated clinical audit system. J Med Syst. 1983;7:307-313.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
46. Mazzuca SA, Vinicor F, Einterz RM, Norton JA, Kalasinski LA. Effects of the clinical environment on physicians’ response to postgraduate medical education. Am Educ Res J. 1990;27:473-488.
FREE FULL TEXT
47. Nilasena DS, Lincoln MJ. A computer-generated reminder system improves physician compliance with diabetes preventive care guidelines. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995:640-645.
PUBMED
48. Lobach DF, Hammond WE. Computerized decision support based on a clinical practice guideline improves compliance with care standards. Am J Med. 1997;102:89-98.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
49. Montori VM, Dinneen SF, Gorman CA, et al. The impact of planned care and a diabetes electronic management system on community-based diabetes care. Diabetes Care. 2002;25:1952-1957.
FREE FULL TEXT
50. Filippi A, Sabatini A, Badioli L, et al. Effects of an automated electronic reminder in changing the antiplatelet drug-prescribing behavior among Italian general practitioners in diabetic patients: an intervention trial. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:1497-1500.
FREE FULL TEXT
51. Meigs JB, Cagliero E, Dubey A, et al. A controlled trial of Web-based diabetes disease management: the MGH Diabetes Primary Care Improvement Project. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:750-757.
FREE FULL TEXT
52. Coe FL, Norton E, Oparil S, et al. Treatment of hypertension by computer and physician: a prospective controlled study. J Chronic Dis. 1977;30:81-92.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
53. Rogers JL, Haring OM, Goetz JP. Changes in patient attitudes following the implementation of a medical information system. QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1984;10:65-74.
PUBMED
54. Barnett GO, Winickoff RN, Morgan MM, Zielstorff RD. A computer-based monitoring system for follow-up of elevated blood pressure. Med Care. 1983;21:400-409.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
55. Brownbridge G, Evans A, Fitter M, Platts M. An interactive computerized protocol for the management of hypertension: effects on the general practitioner’s clinical behaviour. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1986;36:198-202.
ISI
| PUBMED
56. McAlister NH, Covvey HD, Tong C, Lee A, Wigle ED. Randomised controlled trial of computer assisted management of hypertension in primary care. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;293:670-674.
57. Rossi RA, Every NR. A computerized intervention to decrease the use of calcium channel blockers in hypertension. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:672-678.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
58. Lowensteyn I, Joseph L, Levinton C, Abrahamowicz M, Steinert Y, Grover S. Can computerized risk profiles help patients improve their coronary risk? the results of the Coronary Health Assessment Study (CHAS). Prev Med. 1998;27:730-737.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
59. Hetlevik I, Holmen J, Kruger O. Implementing clinical guidelines in the treatment of hypertension in general practice: evaluation of patient outcome related to implementation of a computer-based clinical decision support system. Scand J Prim Health Care. 1999;17:35-40.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
60. Montgomery AA, Fahey T, Peters TJ, MacIntosh C, Sharp DJ. Evaluation of computer based clinical decision support system and risk chart for management of hypertension in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2000;320:686-690.
FREE FULL TEXT
61. Selker HP, Beshansky JR, Griffith JL. Use of the electrocardiograph-based thrombolytic predictive instrument to assist thrombolytic and reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, clinical effectiveness trial. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:87-95.
FREE FULL TEXT
62. Ansari M, Shlipak MG, Heidenreich PA, et al. Improving guideline adherence: a randomized trial evaluating strategies to increase beta-blocker use in heart failure. Circulation. 2003;107:2799-2804.
FREE FULL TEXT
63. Tierney WM, Overhage JM, Murray MD, et al. Effects of computerized guidelines for managing heart disease in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:967-976.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
64. Weir CJ, Lees KR, MacWalter RS, et al. Cluster-randomized, controlled trial of computer-based decision support for selecting long-term anti-thrombotic therapy after acute ischaemic stroke. QJM. 2003;96:143-153.
FREE FULL TEXT
65. Murray MD, Harris LE, Overhage JM, et al. Failure of computerized treatment suggestions to improve health outcomes of outpatients with uncomplicated hypertension: results of a randomized controlled trial. Pharmacotherapy. 2004;24:324-337.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
66. Petrucci K, Petrucci P, Canfield K, et al. Evaluation of UNIS: urological nursing information systems. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1991:43-47.
PUBMED
67. Rubenstein LV, McCoy JM, Cope DW, et al. Improving patient quality of life with feedback to physicians about functional status. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10:607-614.
ISI
| PUBMED
68. Safran C, Rind DM, Davis RB, et al. Guidelines for management of HIV infection with computer-based patient’s record. Lancet. 1995;346:341-346.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
69. Dexter PR, Wolinsky FD, Gramelspacher GP, et al. Effectiveness of computer-generated reminders for increasing discussions about advance directives and completion of advance directive forms: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:102-110.
FREE FULL TEXT
70. East TD, Heermann LK, Bradshaw RL, et al. Efficacy of computerized decision support for mechanical ventilation: results of a prospective multi-center randomized trial. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999:251-255.
PUBMED
71. Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Tanasijevic MJ, et al. Improving response to critical laboratory results with automation: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6:512-522.
FREE FULL TEXT
72. Christakis DA, Zimmerman FJ, Wright JA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of point-of-care evidence to improve the antibiotic prescribing practices for otitis media in children. Pediatrics. 2001;107:E15.
FREE FULL TEXT
73. McCowan C, Neville RG, Ricketts IW, Warner FC, Hoskins G, Thomas GE. Lessons from a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate computer decision support software to improve the management of asthma. Med Inform Internet Med. 2001;26:191-201.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
74. Eccles M, McColl E, Steen N, et al. Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2002;325:941.
FREE FULL TEXT
75. Lesourd F, Avril C, Boujennah A, Parinaud J. A computerized decision support system for ovarian stimulation by gonadotropins. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:456-460.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
76. McDonald CJ. Use of a computer to detect and respond to clinical events: its effect on clinician behavior. Ann Intern Med. 1976;84:162-167.
ISI
| PUBMED
77. Young DW. Improving the consistency with which investigations are requested. Med Inform (Lond). 1981;6:13-17.
78. Fihn SD, McDonell MB, Vermes D, et al. A computerized intervention to improve timing of outpatient follow-up: a multicenter randomized trial in patients treated with warfarin. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9:131-139.
ISI
| PUBMED
79. Overhage JM, Tierney WM, Zhou XH, McDonald CJ. A randomized trial of "corollary orders" to prevent errors of omission. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4:364-375.
FREE FULL TEXT
80. Tierney WM, McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Martin DK. Computer predictions of abnormal test results: effects on outpatient testing. JAMA. 1988;259:1194-1198.
FREE FULL TEXT
81. Tierney WM, Miller ME, Overhage JM, McDonald CJ. Physician inpatient order writing on microcomputer workstations: effects on resource utilization. JAMA. 1993;269:379-383.
FREE FULL TEXT
82. Hales JW, Gardner RM, Jacobson JT. Factors impacting the success of computerized preadmission screening. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995:728-732.
PUBMED
83. Shea S, Sideli RV, DuMouchel W, Pulver G, Arons RR, Clayton PD. Computer-generated informational messages directed to physicians: effect on length of hospital stay. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1995;2:58-64.
FREE FULL TEXT
84. Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E, et al. A randomized trial of a computer-based intervention to reduce utilization of redundant laboratory tests. Am J Med. 1999;106:144-150.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
85. Abbrecht PH, O’Leary TJ, Behrendt DM. Evaluation of a computer-assisted method for individualized anticoagulation: retrospective and prospective studies with a pharmacodynamic model. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1982;32:129-136.
ISI
| PUBMED
86. Carter BL, Taylor JW, Becker A. Evaluation of three dosage-prediction methods for initial in-hospital stabilization of warfarin therapy. Clin Pharm. 1987;6:37-45.
ISI
| PUBMED
87. White RH, Hong R, Venook AP, et al. Initiation of warfarin therapy: comparison of physician dosing with computer-assisted dosing. J Gen Intern Med. 1987;2:141-148.
ISI
| PUBMED
88. White RH, Mungall D. Outpatient management of warfarin therapy: comparison of computer-predicted dosage adjustment to skilled professional care. Ther Drug Monit. 1991;13:46-50.
ISI
| PUBMED
89. Poller L, Wright D, Rowlands M. Prospective comparative study of computer programs used for management of warfarin. J Clin Pathol. 1993;46:299-303.
FREE FULL TEXT
90. Fitzmaurice DA, Hobbs FD, Murray ET, Bradley CP, Holder R. Evaluation of computerized decision support for oral anticoagulation management based in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46:533-535.
ISI
| PUBMED
91. Vadher B, Patterson DL, Leaning M. Evaluation of a decision support system for initiation and control of oral anticoagulation in a randomised trial. BMJ. 1997;314:1252-1256.
FREE FULL TEXT
92. Vadher BD, Patterson DL, Leaning M. Comparison of oral anticoagulant control by a nurse-practitioner using a computer decision-support system with that by clinicians. Clin Lab Haematol. 1997;19:203-207.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
93. Ageno W, Turpie AG. A randomized comparison of a computer-based dosing program with a manual system to monitor oral anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Res. 1998;91:237-240.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
94. Poller L, Shiach CR, MacCallum PK, et al. Multicentre randomised study of computerised anticoagulant dosage. Lancet. 1998;352:1505-1509.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
95. Fitzmaurice DA, Hobbs FD, Murray ET, Holder RL, Allan TF, Rose PE. Oral anticoagulation management in primary care with the use of computerized decision support and near-patient testing: a randomized, controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2343-2348.
FREE FULL TEXT
96. Manotti C, Moia M, Palareti G, Pengo V, Ria L, Dettori AG. Effect of computer-aided management on the quality of treatment in anticoagulated patients: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial of APROAT (Automated PRogram for Oral Anticoagulant Treatment). Haematologica. 2001;86:1060-1070.
FREE FULL TEXT
97. Mungall DR, Anbe D, Forrester PL, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of the accuracy of computer-assisted versus GUSTO nomogram–directed heparin therapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1994;55:591-596.
ISI
| PUBMED
98. Hurley SF, Dziukas LJ, McNeil JJ, Brignell MJ. A randomized controlled clinical trial of pharmacokinetic theophylline dosing. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1986;134:1219-1224.
ISI
| PUBMED
99. Gonzalez ER, Vanderheyden BA, Ornato JP, Comstock TG. Computer-assisted optimization of aminophylline therapy in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 1989;7:395-401.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
100. Verner D, Seligmann H, Platt S, et al. Computer assisted design of a theophylline dosing regimen in acute bronchospasm: serum concentrations and clinical outcome. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;43:29-33.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
101. Casner PR, Reilly R, Ho H. A randomized controlled trial of computerized pharmacokinetic theophylline dosing versus empiric physician dosing. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1993;53:684-690.
ISI
| PUBMED
102. Begg EJ, Atkinson HC, Jeffery GM, Taylor NW. Individualised aminoglycoside dosage based on pharmacokinetic analysis is superior to dosage based on physician intuition at achieving target plasma drug concentrations. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1989;28:137-141.
ISI
| PUBMED
103. Hickling K, Begg E, Moore ML. A prospective randomised trial comparing individualised pharmacokinetic dosage prediction for aminoglycosides with prediction based on estimated creatinine clearance in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 1989;15:233-237.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
104. Burton ME, Ash CL, Hill DP Jr, Handy T, Shepherd MD, Vasko MR. A controlled trial of the cost benefit of computerized Bayesian aminoglycoside administration. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1991;49:685-694.
ISI
| PUBMED
105. Peck CC, Sheiner LB, Martin CM, et al. Computer-assisted digoxin therapy. N Engl J Med. 1973;289:441-446.
ISI
| PUBMED
106. Rodman JH, Jelliffe RW, Kolb E, et al. Clinical studies with computer-assisted initial lidocaine therapy. Arch Intern Med. 1984;144:703-709.
FREE FULL TEXT
107. Ryff-de Leche A, Engler H, Nutzi E, Berger M, Berger W. Clinical application of two computerized diabetes management systems: comparison with the log-book method. Diabetes Res. 1992;19:97-105.
ISI
| PUBMED
108. Horn W, Popow C, Miksch S, et al. Development and evaluation of VIE-PNN, a knowledge-based system for calculating the parenteral nutrition of newborn infants. Artif Intell Med. 2002;24:217-228.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
109. McDonald CJ. Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non-perfectability of man. N Engl J Med. 1976;295:1351-1355.
ABSTRACT
110. McDonald CJ, Wilson GA, McCabe GP Jr. Physician response to computer reminders. JAMA. 1980;244:1579-1581.
FREE FULL TEXT
111. White KS, Lindsay A, Pryor TA, Brown WF, Walsh K. Application of a computerized medical decision-making process to the problem of digoxin intoxication. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984;4:571-576.
ABSTRACT
112. Rotman BL, Sullivan AN, McDonald TW, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a computer-based physician workstation in an outpatient setting: implementation barriers to outcome evaluation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1996;3:340-348.
FREE FULL TEXT
113. Tamblyn R, Huang A, Perreault R, et al. The medical office of the 21st century (MOXXI): effectiveness of computerized decision-making support in reducing inappropriate prescribing in primary care. CMAJ. 2003;169:549-556.
FREE FULL TEXT
114. McKinley BA, Moore FA, Sailors RM, et al. Computerized decision support for mechanical ventilation of trauma induced ARDS: results of a randomized clinical trial. J Trauma. 2001;50:415-424.
ISI
| PUBMED
115. Hetlevik I, Holmen J, Kruger O, Kristensen P, Iversen H, Furuseth K. Implementing clinical guidelines in the treatment of diabetes mellitus in general practice: evaluation of effort, process, and patient outcome related to implementation of a computer-based decision support system. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:210-227.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
116. Rogers JL, Haring OM, Wortman PM, Watson RA, Goetz JP. Medical information systems: assessing impact in the areas of hypertension, obesity and renal disease. Med Care. 1982;20:63-74.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
117. Rogers JL, Haring OM. The impact of a computerized medical record summary system on incidence and length of hospitalization. Med Care. 1979;17:618-630.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
118. Hetlevik I, Holmen J, Kruger O, et al. Implementing clinical guidelines in the treatment of hypertension in general practice. Blood Press. 1998;7:270-276.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
119. Holbrook A, Xu S, Banting J. What factors determine the success of clinical decision support systems? AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003:862.
PUBMED
120. Reisman Y. Computer-based clinical decision aids: a review of methods and assessment of systems. Med Inform (Lond). 1996;21:179-197.
121. Kawamoto K, Lobach DF. Clinical decision support provided within physician order entry systems: a systematic review of features effective for changing clinician behavior. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003:361-365.
PUBMED
122. Berlin A, Sorani M, Sim I. Characteristics of outpatient clinical decision support systems: a taxonomic description. Medinfo. 2004;2004:578-581.
PUBMED
123. Fox J, Thomson R. Clinical decision support systems: a discussion of quality, safety and legal liability issues. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002:265-269.
PUBMED
124. Ofman JJ, Badamgarav E, Henning JM, et al. Does disease management improve clinical and economic outcomes in patients with chronic diseases? a systematic review. Am J Med. 2004;117:182-192.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
125. Warsi A, Wang PS, LaValley MP, Avorn J, Solomon DH. Self-management education programs in chronic disease: a systematic review and methodological critique of the literature. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1641-1649.
FREE FULL TEXT
126. Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii-iv, 1-72.
PUBMED
127. Stone EG, Morton SC, Hulscher ME, et al. Interventions that increase use of adult immunization and cancer screening services: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:641-651.
FREE FULL TEXT
128. McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Tierney WM. Effects of computer reminders for influenza vaccination on morbidity during influenza epidemics. MD Comput. 1992;9:304-312.
PUBMED
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLES
Role of Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in Facilitating Medication Errors
Ross Koppel, Joshua P. Metlay, Abigail Cohen, Brian Abaluck, A. Russell Localio, Stephen E. Kimmel, and Brian L. Strom
JAMA. 2005;293(10):1197-1203.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Computer Technology and Clinical Work: Still Waiting for Godot
Robert L. Wears and Marc Berg
JAMA. 2005;293(10):1261-1263.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Use of pharmacy informatics resources by clinical pharmacy services in acute care hospitals
Matsuura and Weeks
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2009;66:1934-1938.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
From practice guidelines to clinical decision support: closing the loop
Fox et al.
JRSM 2009;102:464-473.
FULL TEXT
Getting a better grip on research: the comfort of opinion
Maskrey et al.
InnovAiT 2009;2:679-686.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Accessing pre-appraised evidence: fine-tuning the 5S model into a 6S model
DiCenso et al.
Evid. Based Nurs. 2009;12:99-101.
FULL TEXT
Computerized Decision Support for the Cardiovascular Clinician: Applications for Venous Thromboembolism Prevention and Beyond
Piazza and Goldhaber
Circulation 2009;120:1133-1137.
FULL TEXT
The Use of Wireless E-Mail to Improve Healthcare Team Communication
O'Connor et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2009;16:705-713.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Diagnosis of venous thromboembolism
Roy
BMJ 2009;339:b2799-b2799.
FULL TEXT
Clinical prediction rules
Falk and Fahey
BMJ 2009;339:b2899-b2899.
FULL TEXT
Evidence-based diagnosis in general practice: needs both robust evidence and sophisticated electronic health record systems
Delaney
Fam Pract 2009;26:239-240.
FULL TEXT
Improving primary care for patients with complex chronic diseases: Can health information technology play a role?
Grant and Middleton
CMAJ 2009;181:17-18.
FULL TEXT
Individualized electronic decision support and reminders to improve diabetes care in the community: COMPETE II randomized trial
Holbrook et al.
CMAJ 2009;181:37-44.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
What Evidence Supports the Use of Computerized Alerts and Prompts to Improve Clinicians' Prescribing Behavior?
Schedlbauer et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2009;16:531-538.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Physicians' Use of Key Functions in Electronic Health Records from 2005 to 2007: A Statewide Survey
Simon et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2009;16:465-470.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Ambulatory Quality Improvement in Academic Medical Centers: A Changing Landscape
Leas et al.
American Journal of Medical Quality 2009;24:287-294.
ABSTRACT
Implementing Evidence-Based Practices for People With Schizophrenia
Drake et al.
Schizophr Bull 2009;35:704-713.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Long-term effects of a multifaceted intervention to encourage the choice of the oral route for proton pump inhibitors: an interrupted time-series analysis
Colombet et al.
Qual Saf Health Care 2009;18:232-235.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Implementation of the Enteral Nutrition Practice Recommendations
Brantley
Nutr Clin Pract 2009;24:335-343.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Medication errors in critical care: risk factors, prevention and disclosure
Camire et al.
CMAJ 2009;180:936-943.
FULL TEXT
Effect of guideline based computerised decision support on decision making of multidisciplinary teams: cluster randomised trial in cardiac rehabilitation
Goud et al.
BMJ 2009;338:b1440-b1440.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The emerging role of PDAs in information use and clinical decision making
Doran
Evid. Based Nurs. 2009;12:35-38.
FULL TEXT
The Impact of an Electronic Reminder on the Use of Alarms After Separation from Cardiopulmonary Bypass
Eden et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2009;108:1203-1208.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Diagnostic Errors--The Next Frontier for Patient Safety
Newman-Toker and Pronovost
JAMA 2009;301:1060-1062.
FULL TEXT
Effect of Alerts for Drug Dosage Adjustment in Inpatients with Renal Insufficiency
Sellier et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2009;16:203-210.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Health Information Technology And Patient Safety: Evidence From Panel Data
Parente and McCullough
Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:357-360.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
From Tasks To Processes: The Case For Changing Health Information Technology To Improve Health Care
Walker and Carayon
Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28:467-477.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinician Perspectives about Molecular Genetic Testing for Heritable Conditions and Development of a Clinician-Friendly Laboratory Report
Lubin et al.
J. Mol. Diagn. 2009;11:162-171.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Testing our understanding of tests
Phillips and Westwood
Arch. Dis. Child. 2009;94:178-179.
FULL TEXT
Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve Prescribing
Ostini et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2009;43:502-513.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: better use of anticoagulation and new agents will lead to improved outcomes
Nieuwlaat and Connolly
Heart 2009;95:95-97.
FULL TEXT
Increasing Reliability of APACHE II Scores in a Medical-Surgical Intensive Care Unit: A Quality Improvement Study
Donahoe et al.
Am J Crit Care 2009;18:58-64.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Use of an Electronic Medical Record System to Support Primary Care Recommendations to Prevent, Identify, and Manage Childhood Obesity
Rattay et al.
Pediatrics 2009;123:S100-S107.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effects of algorithm for diagnosis of active labour: cluster randomised trial
Cheyne et al.
BMJ 2008;337:a2396-a2396.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Combined Task Delegation, Computerized Decision Support, and Feedback Improve Cardiovascular Risk for Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A cluster randomized trial in primary care
Cleveringa et al.
Diabetes Care 2008;31:2273-2275.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Electronic Health Records and Malpractice Claims in Office Practice
Virapongse et al.
Arch Intern Med 2008;168:2362-2367.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Benefit of Oral Anticoagulant Over Antiplatelet Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation Depends on the Quality of International Normalized Ratio Control Achieved by Centers and Countries as Measured by Time in Therapeutic Range
Connolly et al.
Circulation 2008;118:2029-2037.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Improving Care, Improving Performance, or Just Improving Numbers?
Luchins
Psychiatr. Serv. 2008;59:1328-1330.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Osteoporosis-Related Fracture: A Multifactoral Osteopathic Approach
Gronholz
JAOA: Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 2008;108:575-585.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Practice-Linked Online Personal Health Records for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Grant et al.
Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1776-1782.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Methodologic Issues in Health Informatics Trials: The Complexities of Complex Interventions
Shcherbatykh et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:575-580.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Ordering Molecular Genetic Tests and Reporting Results: Practices in Laboratory and Clinical Settings
Lubin et al.
J. Mol. Diagn. 2008;10:459-468.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Knowledge-to-action cycle
Straus and Holroyd-Leduc
Evid. Based Med. 2008;13:98-100.
FULL TEXT
"Smart Forms" in an Electronic Medical Record: Documentation-based Clinical Decision Support to Improve Disease Management
Schnipper et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:513-523.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Informatics Opportunities at the Intersection of Patient Safety and Clinical Informatics
Kilbridge and Classen
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:397-407.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Next Generation of Health Information Tools: Where Do We Go From Here?
Grant
Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83:745-746.
FULL TEXT
Situation Awareness: Review of Mica Endsley's 1995 Articles on Situation Awareness Theory and Measurement
Wickens
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2008;50:397-403.
ABSTRACT
Humans: Still Vital After All These Years of Automation
Parasuraman and Wickens
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2008;50:511-520.
ABSTRACT
Evaluation of the GIDEON Expert Computer Program for the Diagnosis of Imported Febrile Illnesses
Bottieau et al.
Med Decis Making 2008;28:435-442.
ABSTRACT
What may help or hinder the implementation of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs): a focus group study with physicians
Varonen et al.
Fam Pract 2008;25:162-167.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Potential for improving patient safety by computerized decision support systems
Delaney
Fam Pract 2008;25:137-138.
FULL TEXT
Improving prevention in primary care: Evaluating the sustainability of outreach facilitation
Hogg et al.
cfp 2008;54:712-720.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prompting Clinicians about Preventive Care Measures: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Dexheimer et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:311-320.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
EHR Safety: The Way Forward to Safe and Effective Systems
Walker et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:272-277.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Causes of preventable drug-related hospital admissions: a qualitative study
Howard et al.
Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:109-116.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Randomized Effectiveness Trial of a Clinical Informatics Consult Service: Impact on Evidence-based Decision-making and Knowledge Implementation
Mulvaney et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:203-211.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Contextual Implementation Model: A Framework for Assisting Clinical Information System Implementations
Callen et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:255-262.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Influence of a Physician's Use of a Diagnostic Decision Aid on the Malpractice Verdicts of Mock Jurors
Arkes et al.
Med Decis Making 2008;28:201-208.
ABSTRACT
Using Computer-Based Decision Support to Close the "Know Do" Gap in Lipid-Lowering Therapy
Avorn and Choudhry
Circulation 2008;117:336-337.
FULL TEXT
Electronic Alerts Versus On-Demand Decision Support to Improve Dyslipidemia Treatment: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
van Wyk et al.
Circulation 2008;117:371-378.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impact of a spirometry expert system on general practitioners' decision making
Poels et al.
Eur Respir J 2008;31:84-92.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Randomized Trial of a Clinical Decision Support System: Impact on the Management of Children with Fever without Apparent Source
Roukema et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2008;15:107-113.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Self-Reported Performance Improvement Strategies of Highly Successful Veterans Health Administration Facilities
Craig et al.
American Journal of Medical Quality 2007;22:438-444.
ABSTRACT
Patterns of Use of Handheld Clinical Decision Support Tools in the Clinical Setting
Yu et al.
Med Decis Making 2007;27:744-753.
ABSTRACT
Prediction Is Difficult, Particularly About the Future
Jackson and Wells
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2286-2287.
FULL TEXT
Impact of Electronic Alerts on Isolation Precautions for Patients With Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria
Kac et al.
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2086-2090.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effects of an integrated clinical information system on medication safety in a multi-hospital setting
Mahoney et al.
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007;64:1969-1977.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Tackling therapeutic inertia: role of treatment data in quality indicators
Guthrie et al.
BMJ 2007;335:542-544.
FULL TEXT
Unintended Consequences of Information Technologies in Health Care An Interactive Sociotechnical Analysis
Harrison et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:542-549.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impact of Clinical Reminder Redesign on Learnability, Efficiency, Usability, and Workload for Ambulatory Clinic Nurses
Saleem et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:632-640.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Strategic approach for improving the medication-use process in health systems: The high-performance pharmacy practice framework
Vermeulen et al.
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007;64:1699-1710.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Electronic Health Record Use and the Quality of Ambulatory Care in the United States
Linder et al.
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:1400-1405.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Description and Functional Taxonomy of Rule-based Decision Support Content at a Large Integrated Delivery Network
Wright et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:489-496.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Extent and Importance of Unintended Consequences Related to Computerized Provider Order Entry
Ash et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:415-423.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Hyperglycemia management in the hospital setting
Hassan
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007;64:S9-S14.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Electronic Medical Records and Diabetes Quality of Care: Results From a Sample of Family Medicine Practices
Crosson et al.
Ann Fam Med 2007;5:209-215.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Different Paths to High-Quality Care: Three Archetypes of Top-Performing Practice Sites
Feifer et al.
Ann Fam Med 2007;5:233-241.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Viewpoint on Evidence-based Health Informatics, Based on a Pilot Survey on Evaluation Studies in Health Care Informatics
Ammenwerth and de Keizer
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:368-371.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Informatics Systems to Promote Improved Care for Chronic Illness: A Literature Review
Dorr et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:156-163.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Proposal for Fulfilling Strategic Objectives of the U.S. Roadmap for National Action on Decision Support through a Service-oriented Architecture Leveraging HL7 Services
Kawamoto and Lobach
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:146-155.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Advancing Evidence-Based Care For Diabetes: Lessons From The Veterans Health Administration
Kupersmith et al.
Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:w156-w168.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Utility of Nerve Conduction Studies for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome by Family Medicine, Primary Care, and Internal Medicine Physicians
Megerian et al.
J Am Board Fam Med 2007;20:60-64.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Medication-related Clinical Decision Support in Computerized Provider Order Entry Systems: A Review
Kuperman et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:29-40.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evaluation and Certification of Computerized Provider Order Entry Systems
Classen et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:48-55.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Electronic Medical Records and Their Impact on Resident and Medical Student Education
Keenan et al.
Acad. Psychiatry 2006;30:522-527.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Improving empirical antibiotic treatment using TREAT, a computerized decision support system: cluster randomized trial
Paul et al.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;58:1238-1245.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Stroke-Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument: A Predictive Instrument for Intravenous Thrombolysis in Acute Ischemic Stroke
Kent et al.
Stroke 2006;37:2957-2962.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Stroke-Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument Provides Valid Quantitative Estimates of Outcome Probabilities and Aids Clinical Decision-Making
Demaerschalk
Stroke 2006;37:2865-2866.
FULL TEXT
Use of a Personal Digital Assistant for Managing Antibiotic Prescribing for Outpatient Respiratory Tract Infections in Rural Communities
Rubin et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2006;13:627-634.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effectiveness of Clinician-selected Electronic Information Resources for Answering Primary Care Physicians' Information Needs
McKibbon and Fridsma
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2006;13:653-659.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemic: Stepping Back and Looking Forward
Kiberd
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2006;17:2967-2973.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Development and Testing of a Scale to Assess Physician Attitudes about Handheld Computers with Decision Support
Ray et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2006;13:567-572.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
What Interventions Should Pharmacists Employ to Impact Health Practitioners' Prescribing Practices?
Grindrod et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2006;40:1546-1557.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impact of a Computerized Clinical Decision Support System on Reducing Inappropriate Antimicrobial Use: A Randomized Controlled Trial
McGregor et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2006;13:378-384.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Using Commercial Knowledge Bases for Clinical Decision Support: Opportunities, Hurdles, and Recommendations
Kuperman et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2006;13:369-371.
FULL TEXT
The NHS programme for information technology
Keen
BMJ 2006;333:3-4.
FULL TEXT
Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies.
Lapointe and Rivard
CMAJ 2006;174:1573-1578.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care
Chaudhry et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2006;144:742-752.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Information technology for optimizing the management of infectious diseases
Drew et al.
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006;63:957-965.
FULL TEXT
|
