| Title |
Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: Methods of a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Implementation Science, February 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1748-5908-5-12 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R Brian Haynes, Nancy L Wilczynski, the Computerized Clinical Decision Support System (CCDSS) Systematic Review Team |
| Abstract |
Computerized clinical decision support systems are information technology-based systems designed to improve clinical decision-making. As with any healthcare intervention with claims to improve process of care or patient outcomes, decision support systems should be rigorously evaluated before widespread dissemination into clinical practice. Engaging healthcare providers and managers in the review process may facilitate knowledge translation and uptake. The objective of this research was to form a partnership of healthcare providers, managers, and researchers to review randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized decision support for six clinical application areas: primary preventive care, therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing, drug prescribing, chronic disease management, diagnostic test ordering and interpretation, and acute care management; and to identify study characteristics that predict benefit. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 296 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 3% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 277 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 62 | 21% |
| Researcher | 50 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 61 | 21% |
| Unknown | 36 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 104 | 35% |
| Computer Science | 48 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 6% |
| Engineering | 13 | 4% |
| Other | 45 | 15% |
| Unknown | 46 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2012.
All research outputs
#20,238,855
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,708
of 1,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,906
of 174,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,787 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 174,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.