» Articles » PMID: 32943437

Computerised Clinical Decision Support Systems and Absolute Improvements in Care: Meta-analysis of Controlled Clinical Trials

Overview
Journal BMJ
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2020 Sep 18
PMID 32943437
Citations 141
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To report the improvements achieved with clinical decision support systems and examine the heterogeneity from pooling effects across diverse clinical settings and intervention targets.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data Sources: Medline up to August 2019.

Eligibility Criteria For Selecting Studies And Methods: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials reporting absolute improvements in the percentage of patients receiving care recommended by clinical decision support systems. Multilevel meta-analysis accounted for within study clustering. Meta-regression was used to assess the degree to which the features of clinical decision support systems and study characteristics reduced heterogeneity in effect sizes. Where reported, clinical endpoints were also captured.

Results: In 108 studies (94 randomised, 14 quasi-randomised), reporting 122 trials that provided analysable data from 1 203 053 patients and 10 790 providers, clinical decision support systems increased the proportion of patients receiving desired care by 5.8% (95% confidence interval 4.0% to 7.6%). This pooled effect exhibited substantial heterogeneity (I=76%), with the top quartile of reported improvements ranging from 10% to 62%. In 30 trials reporting clinical endpoints, clinical decision support systems increased the proportion of patients achieving guideline based targets (eg, blood pressure or lipid control) by a median of 0.3% (interquartile range -0.7% to 1.9%). Two study characteristics (low baseline adherence and paediatric settings) were associated with significantly larger effects. Inclusion of these covariates in the multivariable meta-regression, however, did not reduce heterogeneity.

Conclusions: Most interventions with clinical decision support systems appear to achieve small to moderate improvements in targeted processes of care, a finding confirmed by the small changes in clinical endpoints found in studies that reported them. A minority of studies achieved substantial increases in the delivery of recommended care, but predictors of these more meaningful improvements remain undefined.

Citing Articles

Implementing Clinical Practice Guidelines: Considerations for Epileptologists.

Gutierrez C, Roberson S, Esmaeili B, Punia V, Johnson E Epilepsy Curr. 2025; :15357597251318536.

PMID: 40040859 PMC: 11873851. DOI: 10.1177/15357597251318536.


Digitization in nursing processes and the use of clinical decision support systems: do they improve perinatal indicators?.

Ozkan A, Acar Z BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025; 25(1):218.

PMID: 40021982 PMC: 11869734. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-025-07272-1.


Exploring intensive care unit nurses' acceptance of clinical decision support systems and use of volumetric pump data: A qualitative description study.

Vincelette C, Carrier F, Bilodeau C, Chasse M Nurs Crit Care. 2025; 30(2):e13274.

PMID: 40012078 PMC: 11865297. DOI: 10.1111/nicc.13274.


Use of multicomponent structured exercise to improve depression in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cheng S, Duan Y, Yang M, Wang X J Exerc Sci Fit. 2025; 23(2):91-101.

PMID: 39926605 PMC: 11803849. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesf.2025.01.006.


Effectiveness of Electronic Quality Improvement Activities to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk in People With Chronic Kidney Disease in General Practice: Cluster Randomized Trial With Active Control.

Manski-Nankervis J, Hunter B, Lumsden N, Laughlin A, McMorrow R, Boyle D JMIR Form Res. 2025; 9:e54147.

PMID: 39899838 PMC: 11833263. DOI: 10.2196/54147.


References
1.
Garg A, Adhikari N, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano M, Devereaux P, Beyene J . Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005; 293(10):1223-38. DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1223. View

2.
Grimshaw J, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay C, Vale L . Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004; 8(6):iii-iv, 1-72. DOI: 10.3310/hta8060. View

3.
Abdel-Kader K, Fischer G, Li J, Moore C, Hess R, Unruh M . Automated clinical reminders for primary care providers in the care of CKD: a small cluster-randomized controlled trial. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011; 58(6):894-902. PMC: 3221894. DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2011.08.028. View

4.
Smith J, Noble M, Musgrave S, Murdoch J, Price G, Barton G . The at-risk registers in severe asthma (ARRISA) study: a cluster-randomised controlled trial examining effectiveness and costs in primary care. Thorax. 2012; 67(12):1052-60. DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2012-202093. View

5.
Cote G, Rice J, Bulsiewicz W, Norvell J, Christensen K, Bobb A . Use of physician education and computer alert to improve targeted use of gastroprotection among NSAID users. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008; 103(5):1097-103. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01907.x. View