Tamara Navarro

Computerized clinical decision support systems for primary preventive care: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes.

BackgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are claimed to improve processes and outcomes of primary preventive care (PPC), but their effects, safety, and acceptance must be confirmed. We updated our previous systematic reviews of CCDSSs and integrated a knowledge translation approach in the process. The objective was to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CCDSSs for PPC on process of care, patient outcomes, harms, and costs.MethodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovids EBM Reviews Database, Inspec, and other databases, as well as reference lists through January 2010. We contacted authors to confirm data or provide additional information. We included RCTs that assessed the effect of a CCDSS for PPC on process of care and patient outcomes compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.ResultsWe added 17 new RCTs to our 2005 review for a total of 41 studies. RCT quality improved over time. CCDSSs improved process of care in 25 of 40 (63%) RCTs. Cumulative scientifically strong evidence supports the effectiveness of CCDSSs for screening and management of dyslipidaemia in primary care. There is mixed evidence for effectiveness in screening for cancer and mental health conditions, multiple preventive care activities, vaccination, and other preventive care interventions. Fourteen (34%) trials assessed patient outcomes, and four (29%) reported improvements with the CCDSS. Most trials were not powered to evaluate patient-important outcomes. CCDSS costs and adverse events were reported in only six (15%) and two (5%) trials, respectively. Information on study duration was often missing, limiting our ability to assess sustainability of CCDSS effects.ConclusionsEvidence supports the effectiveness of CCDSSs for screening and treatment of dyslipidaemia in primary care with less consistent evidence for CCDSSs used in screening for cancer and mental health-related conditions, vaccinations, and other preventive care. CCDSS effects on patient outcomes, safety, costs of care, and provider satisfaction remain poorly supported.

Computerized clinical decision support systems for drug prescribing and management: A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

BackgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) for drug therapy management are designed to promote safe and effective medication use. Evidence documenting the effectiveness of CCDSSs for improving drug therapy is necessary for informed adoption decisions. The objective of this review was to systematically review randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of CCDSSs for drug therapy management on process of care and patient outcomes. We also sought to identify system and study characteristics that predicted benefit.MethodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We updated our earlier reviews (1998, 2005) by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Inspec, and other databases, and consulting reference lists through January 2010. Authors of 82% of included studies confirmed or supplemented extracted data. We included only randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS for drug therapy management compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.ResultsSixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria, including 41 new studies since our previous review. Methodological quality was generally high and unchanged with time. CCDSSs improved process of care performance in 37 of the 59 studies assessing this type of outcome (64%, 57% of all studies). Twenty-nine trials assessed patient outcomes, of which six trials (21%, 9% of all trials) reported improvements.ConclusionsCCDSSs inconsistently improved process of care measures and seldomly improved patient outcomes. Lack of clear patient benefit and lack of data on harms and costs preclude a recommendation to adopt CCDSSs for drug therapy management.

Computerized clinical decision support systems for acute care management: A decision-maker- researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes

BackgroundAcute medical care often demands timely, accurate decisions in complex situations. Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) have many features that could help. However, as for any medical intervention, claims that CCDSSs improve care processes and patient outcomes need to be rigorously assessed. The objective of this review was to systematically review the effects of CCDSSs on process of care and patient outcomes for acute medical care.MethodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, ACP Journal Club, and others), and the Inspec bibliographic database were searched to January 2010, in all languages, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CCDSSs in all clinical areas. We included RCTs that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS used for acute medical care compared with care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.ResultsThirty-six studies met our inclusion criteria for acute medical care. The CCDSS improved process of care in 63% (22/35) of studies, including 64% (9/14) of medication dosing assistants, 82% (9/11) of management assistants using alerts/reminders, 38% (3/8) of management assistants using guidelines/algorithms, and 67% (2/3) of diagnostic assistants. Twenty studies evaluated patient outcomes, of which three (15%) reported improvements, all of which were medication dosing assistants.ConclusionThe majority of CCDSSs demonstrated improvements in process of care, but patient outcomes were less likely to be evaluated and far less likely to show positive results.

Computerized clinical decision support systems for therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing: A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

BackgroundSome drugs have a narrow therapeutic range and require monitoring and dose adjustments to optimize their efficacy and safety. Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) may improve the net benefit of these drugs. The objective of this review was to determine if CCDSSs improve processes of care or patient outcomes for therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing.MethodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. Studies from our previous review were included, and new studies were sought until January 2010 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and Inspec databases. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of a CCDSS on process of care or patient outcomes were selected by pairs of independent reviewers. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.ResultsThirty-three randomized controlled trials were identified, assessing the effect of a CCDSS on management of vitamin K antagonists (14), insulin (6), theophylline/aminophylline (4), aminoglycosides (3), digoxin (2), lidocaine (1), or as part of a multifaceted approach (3). Cluster randomization was rarely used (18%) and CCDSSs were usually stand-alone systems (76%) primarily used by physicians (85%). Overall, 18 of 30 studies (60%) showed an improvement in the process of care and 4 of 19 (21%) an improvement in patient outcomes. All evaluable studies assessing insulin dosing for glycaemic control showed an improvement. In meta-analysis, CCDSSs for vitamin K antagonist dosing significantly improved time in therapeutic range.ConclusionsCCDSSs have potential for improving process of care for therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing, specifically insulin and vitamin K antagonist dosing. However, studies were small and generally of modest quality, and effects on patient outcomes were uncertain, with no convincing benefit in the largest studies. At present, no firm recommendation for specific systems can be given. More potent CCDSSs need to be developed and should be evaluated by independent researchers using cluster randomization and primarily assess patient outcomes related to drug efficacy and safety.

Effectiveness and content analysis of interventions to enhance medication adherence and blood pressure control in hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness of medication adherence interventions on blood pressure control in hypertensive patients. In addition, we aim to explore what barriers and facilitators in the interventions may have been targeted and how these might be related to the effect size on blood pressure (BP). Design: This review is a hypertension-specific update to the previous Cochrane Review by Nieuwlaat et al. (2014) on interventions to enhance medication adherence. A systematic literature search was carried out and two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for their eligibility for inclusion and independently extracted data from the selected studies and assessed the methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. A meta-analysis was conducted and additionally, theoretical factors in interventions were identified using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: The meta-analysis found a modest main effect of adherence interventions on SBP (MD −2.71 mm Hg, 95% CI −4.17 to −1.26) and DBP (MD −1.25 mm Hg, 95% CI −1.72 to −.79). However, there was substantial significant heterogeneity across both outcomes. A narrative review on adherence outcomes was conducted. In terms of the theoretical analysis, the relationship between the total number of times the domains were coded within an intervention and change of SBP (r  =  −.234, p = .335) and DBP was not significant (r  =  −.080, p = .732). Similarly, the relationship between the total number of times different domains were coded within an intervention and change of SBP (r  =  .080, p = .746) and DBP was not significant (r  =  −.188, p = .415). Discussion: This review and meta-analysis of interventions documented significant but modest post-intervention improvements in BP outcomes among hypertensive patients. However, this is a tentative finding as substantial heterogeneity and potential biases were present. One of the greatest challenges of this review was assessing risk of bias, extracting sufficient data to calculate effect size and coding interventions with the amount of information provided in papers. It is imperative that future adherence research comprehensively reports methodology.

Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients' views and preferences

BackgroundIdentifying scientific literature addressing patients’ views and preferences is complex due to the wide range of studies that can be informative and the poor indexing of this evidence. Given the lack of guidance we developed a search strategy to retrieve this type of evidence.MethodsWe assembled an initial list of terms from several sources, including the revision of the terms and indexing of topic-related studies and, methods research literature, and other relevant projects and systematic reviews. We used the relative recall approach, evaluating the capacity of the designed search strategy for retrieving studies included in relevant systematic reviews for the topic. We implemented in practice the final version of the search strategy for conducting systematic reviews and guidelines, and calculated search’s precision and the number of references needed to read (NNR).ResultsWe assembled an initial version of the search strategy, which had a relative recall of 87.4% (yield of 132/out of 151 studies). We then added some additional terms from the studies not initially identified, and re-tested this improved version against the studies included in a new set of systematic reviews, reaching a relative recall of 85.8% (151/out of 176 studies, 95% CI 79.9 to 90.2). This final version of the strategy includes two sets of terms related with two domains: “Patient Preferences and Decision Making” and “Health State Utilities Values”. When we used the search strategy for the development of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines we obtained low precision values (ranging from 2% to 5%), and the NNR from 20 to 50.ConclusionsThis search strategy fills an important research gap in this field. It will help systematic reviewers, clinical guideline developers, and policy-makers to retrieve published research on patients’ views and preferences. In turn, this will facilitate the inclusion of this critical aspect when formulating heath care decisions, including recommendations.

023 Feasibility and Efficiency of Strategies For Updating Clinical Practice Guidelines

Background Exhaustive search strategies (ESS) for updating clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations are laborious and expensive. Highly sensitive and specific alternative search strategies are necessary to improve the efficiency in recommendations updating. Objectives To compare alternative search strategies against ESS Methods We ran three different search strategies in a convenience sample of four CPGs from the CPGs National Programme in Spain: 1) Original ESS (gold standard); 2) Search strategy in the McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service (PLUS) database; and 3) Restrictive strategy with the least number of MeSH terms and text words from the original ESS. We retrieved the key references (which triggered an update) from the original ESS and evaluated their presence in the PLUS and restrictive strategies results. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy for the PLUS and restrictive strategies compared to the ESS. Results The overall number of references in the PLUS strategy was lower than in the ESS (39,133 versus 2,635). The PLUS strategy retrieved a range of 1.12% to 12.1% of the total number of references retrieved by the ESS per guideline. Discussion Our project assessed two novel restrictive search strategies for the updating of CPGs, which could reduce the workload while displaying similar results. Full final findings of this project will be presented at the GIN meeting. Implications for Guideline Developers/Users Our project has important implications for updating CPGs, informing on the feasibility and efficiency of two novel search strategies.