tailieunhanh - báo cáo khoa học: "Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve practitioners’ diagnostic test ordering behavior? A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review"

Tuyển tập báo cáo các nghiên cứu khoa học quốc tế ngành y học dành cho các bạn tham khảo đề tài:Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve practitioners’ diagnostic test ordering behavior? A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review | Roshanov et al. Implementation Science 2011 6 88 http content 6 1 88 Implementation Science IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Open Access Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve practitioners diagnostic test ordering behavior A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review c Dz- ICH 1 2 Hn I Vmi I2 3 l c nino rìhsỉ li A 214 kAff3 5 lcorì Ạ K i Tif lzTix 6 I A oico-IColl 6 ravel S Rosiidnov joihi J iuu Jasmine Diidlivvdl Ddvid koii Jedii A Ividckdy Luiidiiie Weise Kelly Tamara NdVdrro6 Ndncy L Wilczynski6 dnd R Bridn Hdynes2 3 6 for the CCDSS Systematic Review Tedm Abstract Background Underuse dnd overuse of didgnostic tests Hdve importdnt implicdtions for hedlth outcomes dnd costs. Decision support technology purports to optimize the use of didgnostic tests in clinicdl practice. The objective of this review wds to dssess whether computerized clinicdl decision support systems CCDSSs dre effective dt improving ordering of tests for didgnosis monitoring of disedse or monitoring of tredtment. The outcome of interest wds effect on the didgnostic test-ordering behdvior of prdctitioners. Methods We conducted d decision-mdker-resedrcher pdrtnership systematic review. We sedrched MEDLINE EMBASE Ovid s EBM Reviews ddtdbdse Inspec dnd reference lists for eligible drticles published up to Jdnudry 2010. We included randomized controlled tridls compdring the use of CCDSSs to usudl practice or non-CCDSS controls in clinicdl cdre settings. Tridls were eligible if dt ledst one component of the CCDSS gdve suggestions for ordering or performing d didgnostic procedure. We considered studies positive if they showed d stdtisticdlly significdnt improvement in dt ledst 50 of test ordering outcomes. Results Thirty-five studies were identified with significdntly higher methodologicdl qudlity in those published dfter the yedr 2000 p . Thirty-three tridls reported evdludble ddtd on didgnostic test ordering dnd 55 18 33 of