You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Impact on process results of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) applied to medication use: overview of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pharmacy Practice (Granada), December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.18549/pharmpract.2017.04.1036 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wálleri C. Reis, Aline F. Bonetti, Wallace E. Bottacin, Alcindo S. Reis, Thaís T. Souza, Roberto Pontarolo, Cassyano J. Correr, Fernando Fernandez-Llimos |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this overview (systematic review of systematic reviews) is to evaluate the impact of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) applied to medication use in the care process. A search for systematic reviews that address CDSS was performed on Medline following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations. Terms related to CDSS and systematic reviews were used in combination with Boolean operators and search field tags to build the electronic search strategy. There was no limitation of date or language for inclusion. We included revisions that investigated, as a main or secondary objective, changes in process outcomes. The Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) score was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. The search retrieved 954 articles. Five articles were added through manual search, totaling an initial sample of 959 articles. After screening and reading in full, 44 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. In the medication-use processes where CDSS was used, the most common stages were prescribing (n=38 (86.36%) and administering (n=12 (27.27%)). Most of the systematic reviews demonstrated improvement in the health care process (30/44 - 68.2%). The main positive results were related to improvement of the quality of prescription by the physicians (14/30 - 46.6%) and reduction of errors in prescribing (5/30 - 16.6%). However, the quality of the studies was poor, according to the score used. CDSSs represent a promising technology to optimize the medication-use process, especially related to improvement in the quality of prescriptions and reduction of prescribing errors, although higher quality studies are needed to establish the predictors of success in these systems. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 103 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Librarian | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 24% |
| Unknown | 30 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 39 | 38% |
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 11 January 2018.
All research outputs
#23,154,082
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Pharmacy Practice (Granada)
#260
of 315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#391,830
of 451,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmacy Practice (Granada)
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. 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 451,687 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.