Are we measuring the right end-points? Variables that affect the impact of computerised decision support on patient outcomes: a systematic review.

Vitali Sintchenko, Farah Magrabi, Steven Tipper
{"title":"Are we measuring the right end-points? Variables that affect the impact of computerised decision support on patient outcomes: a systematic review.","authors":"Vitali Sintchenko,&nbsp;Farah Magrabi,&nbsp;Steven Tipper","doi":"10.1080/14639230701447701","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous reviews of electronic decision-support systems (EDSS) have often treated them as a single category, and factors that may modify their effectiveness of EDSS have not been examined. The objective was to summarise the evidence associating the use of computerised decision support and improved patient outcomes. PubMed/Medline and the Database of Abstracts were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT) of EDSS from 1 January 1994 to 31 January 2006. Twenty-four RCT studies from 97 reviewed were selected, eight of them examined systems supporting decisions for patients who presented with an acute illness, and 16 studies enrolled patients with chronic conditions. Overall, 13 (54%) of the studies showed a positive result, and 11 (46%) were with no impact. Critiquing and consultative systems showed the impact in 71% and 47% of studies, respectively. All systems targeting decisions related to acute disease improved patient outcomes compared with 38% of systems focused on the management of chronic conditions (P = 0.005). Provision of EDSS improves prescribing practices and treatment outcomes of patients with acute illnesses; however, EDSS were less effective in primary care. Complex interventions as clinical EDSS may require new metrics of assessment to describe the impact on patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":80069,"journal":{"name":"Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine","volume":"32 3","pages":"225-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14639230701447701","citationCount":"54","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14639230701447701","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 54

Abstract

Previous reviews of electronic decision-support systems (EDSS) have often treated them as a single category, and factors that may modify their effectiveness of EDSS have not been examined. The objective was to summarise the evidence associating the use of computerised decision support and improved patient outcomes. PubMed/Medline and the Database of Abstracts were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT) of EDSS from 1 January 1994 to 31 January 2006. Twenty-four RCT studies from 97 reviewed were selected, eight of them examined systems supporting decisions for patients who presented with an acute illness, and 16 studies enrolled patients with chronic conditions. Overall, 13 (54%) of the studies showed a positive result, and 11 (46%) were with no impact. Critiquing and consultative systems showed the impact in 71% and 47% of studies, respectively. All systems targeting decisions related to acute disease improved patient outcomes compared with 38% of systems focused on the management of chronic conditions (P = 0.005). Provision of EDSS improves prescribing practices and treatment outcomes of patients with acute illnesses; however, EDSS were less effective in primary care. Complex interventions as clinical EDSS may require new metrics of assessment to describe the impact on patient outcomes.

我们测量的终点是否正确?影响计算机化决策支持对患者结果影响的变量:一项系统综述。
以往对电子决策支持系统(EDSS)的审查往往将其视为单一类别,并且没有审查可能改变其EDSS有效性的因素。目的是总结使用计算机化决策支持与改善患者预后相关的证据。检索PubMed/Medline和摘要数据库,检索1994年1月1日至2006年1月31日EDSS的随机对照试验(RCT)。从97项综述中选择了24项RCT研究,其中8项研究检查了支持急性疾病患者决策的系统,16项研究纳入了慢性疾病患者。总体而言,13项(54%)研究显示出积极的结果,11项(46%)研究没有影响。批评和咨询系统分别在71%和47%的研究中显示了影响。所有针对急性疾病决策的系统都改善了患者的预后,而专注于慢性疾病管理的系统只有38% (P = 0.005)。EDSS的提供改善了急性病患者的处方做法和治疗结果;然而,EDSS在初级保健中效果较差。像临床EDSS这样的复杂干预可能需要新的评估指标来描述对患者预后的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信