Dataset Information

Clinical decision support tools for osteoporosis disease management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Studies indicate a gap between evidence and clinical practice in osteoporosis management. Tools that facilitate clinical decision making at the point of care are promising strategies for closing these practice gaps.

Objective

To systematically review the literature to identify and describe the effectiveness of tools that support clinical decision making in osteoporosis disease management.

Data sources

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EBM Reviews (CDSR, DARE, CCTR, and ACP J Club), and contact with experts in the field.

Review methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language from 1966 to July 2006 investigating disease management interventions in patients at risk for osteoporosis. Outcomes included fractures and bone mineral density (BMD) testing. Two investigators independently assessed articles for relevance and study quality, and extracted data using standardized forms.

Results

Of 1,246 citations that were screened for relevance, 13 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Reported study quality was generally poor. Meta-analysis was not done because of methodological and clinical heterogeneity; 77% of studies included a reminder or education as a component of their intervention. Three studies of reminders plus education targeted to physicians and patients showed increased BMD testing (RR range 1.43 to 8.67) and osteoporosis medication use (RR range 1.60 to 8.67). A physician reminder plus a patient risk assessment strategy found reduced fractures [RR 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.90] and increased osteoporosis therapy (RR 2.44, CI 1.43 to 4.17).

Conclusion

Multi-component tools that are targeted to physicians and patients may be effective for supporting clinical decision making in osteoporosis disease management.

SUBMITTER: Kastner M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2596508 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical decision support tools for osteoporosis disease management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Kastner Monika M Straus Sharon E SE

Journal of general internal medicine 20081004 12

<h4>Background</h4>Studies indicate a gap between evidence and clinical practice in osteoporosis management. Tools that facilitate clinical decision making at the point of care are promising strategies for closing these practice gaps.<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically review the literature to identify and describe the effectiveness of tools that support clinical decision making in osteoporosis disease management.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EBM Reviews (CDSR, DARE, CCTR, an ...[more]

PMID: 18836782

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical decision support (CDS) is a valuable feature of electronic health records (EHRs) designed to improve quality and safety. However, due to the complexities of system design and inconsistent results, CDS tools may inadvertently increase alert fatigue and contribute to physician burnout. A/B testing, or rapid-cycle randomized tests, is a useful method that can be applied to the EHR in order to rapidly understand and iteratively improve design choices embedded within CDS tools.ObjectiveThis paper describes how rapid randomized controlled trials (RCTs) embedded within EHRs can be used to quickly ascertain the superiority of potential CDS design changes to improve their usability, reduce alert fatigue, and promote quality of care.MethodsA multistep process combining tools from user-centered design, A/B testing, and implementation science was used to understand, ideate, prototype, test, analyze, and improve each candidate CDS. CDS engagement metrics (alert views, acceptance rates) were used to evaluate which CDS version is superior.ResultsTo demonstrate the impact of the process, 2 experiments are highlighted. First, after multiple rounds of usability testing, a revised CDS influenza alert was tested against usual care CDS in a rapid (~6 weeks) RCT. The new alert text resulted in minimal impact on reducing firings per patients per day, but this failure triggered another round of review that identified key technical improvements (ie, removal of dismissal button and firings in procedural areas) that led to a dramatic decrease in firings per patient per day (23.1 to 7.3). In the second experiment, the process was used to test 3 versions (financial, quality, regulatory) of text supporting tobacco cessation alerts as well as 3 supporting images. Based on 3 rounds of RCTs, there was no significant difference in acceptance rates based on the framing of the messages or addition of images.ConclusionsThese experiments support the potential for this new process to rapidly develop, deploy, and rigorously evaluate CDS within an EHR. We also identified important considerations in applying these methods. This approach may be an important tool for improving the impact of and experience with CDS.Trial registrationFlu alert trial: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03415425; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03415425. Tobacco alert trial: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03714191; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03714191.

Project description:BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, medical laypersons with symptoms indicative of a COVID-19 infection commonly sought guidance on whether and where to find medical care. Numerous web-based decision support tools (DSTs) have been developed, both by public and commercial stakeholders, to assist their decision making. Though most of the DSTs' underlying algorithms are similar and simple decision trees, their mode of presentation differs: some DSTs present a static flowchart, while others are designed as a conversational agent, guiding the user through the decision tree's nodes step-by-step in an interactive manner.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate whether interactive DSTs provide greater decision support than noninteractive (ie, static) flowcharts.MethodsWe developed mock interfaces for 2 DSTs (1 static, 1 interactive), mimicking patient-facing, freely available DSTs for COVID-19-related self-assessment. Their underlying algorithm was identical and based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's guidelines. We recruited adult US residents online in November 2020. Participants appraised the appropriate social and care-seeking behavior for 7 fictitious descriptions of patients (case vignettes). Participants in the experimental groups received either the static or the interactive mock DST as support, while the control group appraised the case vignettes unsupported. We determined participants' accuracy, decision certainty (after deciding), and mental effort to measure the quality of decision support. Participants' ratings of the DSTs' usefulness, ease of use, trust, and future intention to use the tools served as measures to analyze differences in participants' perception of the tools. We used ANOVAs and t tests to assess statistical significance.ResultsOur survey yielded 196 responses. The mean number of correct assessments was higher in the intervention groups (interactive DST group: mean 11.71, SD 2.37; static DST group: mean 11.45, SD 2.48) than in the control group (mean 10.17, SD 2.00). Decisional certainty was significantly higher in the experimental groups (interactive DST group: mean 80.7%, SD 14.1%; static DST group: mean 80.5%, SD 15.8%) compared to the control group (mean 65.8%, SD 20.8%). The differences in these measures proved statistically significant in t tests comparing each intervention group with the control group (P<.001 for all 4 t tests). ANOVA detected no significant differences regarding mental effort between the 3 study groups. Differences between the 2 intervention groups were of small effect sizes and nonsignificant for all 3 measures of the quality of decision support and most measures of participants' perception of the DSTs.ConclusionsWhen the decision space is limited, as is the case in common COVID-19 self-assessment DSTs, static flowcharts might prove as beneficial in enhancing decision quality as interactive tools. Given that static flowcharts reveal the underlying decision algorithm more transparently and require less effort to develop, they might prove more efficient in providing guidance to the public. Further research should validate our findings on different use cases, elaborate on the trade-off between transparency and convenience in DSTs, and investigate whether subgroups of users benefit more with 1 type of user interface than the other.Trial registrationDeutsches Register Klinischer Studien DRKS00028136; https://tinyurl.com/4bcfausx (retrospectively registered).

Project description:BackgroundLimited consideration of clinical decision support (CDS) design best practices, such as a user-centered design, is often cited as a key barrier to CDS adoption and effectiveness. The application of CDS best practices is resource intensive; thus, institutions often rely on commercially available CDS tools that are created to meet the generalized needs of many institutions and are not user centered. Beyond resource availability, insufficient guidance on how to address key aspects of implementation, such as contextual factors, may also limit the application of CDS best practices. An implementation science (IS) framework could provide needed guidance and increase the reproducibility of CDS implementations.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the effectiveness of an enhanced CDS tool informed by CDS best practices and an IS framework with a generic, commercially available CDS tool.MethodsWe conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study. An IS-enhanced and commercial CDS alert were compared in a cluster randomized trial across 28 primary care clinics. Both alerts aimed to improve beta-blocker prescribing for heart failure. The enhanced alert was informed by CDS best practices and the Practical, Robust, Implementation, and Sustainability Model (PRISM) IS framework, whereas the commercial alert followed vendor-supplied specifications. Following PRISM, the enhanced alert was informed by iterative, multilevel stakeholder input and the dynamic interactions of the internal and external environment. Outcomes aligned with PRISM's evaluation measures, including patient reach, clinician adoption, and changes in prescribing behavior. Clinicians exposed to each alert were interviewed to identify design features that might influence adoption. The interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach.ResultsBetween March 15 and August 23, 2019, the enhanced alert fired for 61 patients (106 alerts, 87 clinicians) and the commercial alert fired for 26 patients (59 alerts, 31 clinicians). The adoption and effectiveness of the enhanced alert were significantly higher than those of the commercial alert (62% vs 29% alerts adopted, P<.001; 14% vs 0% changed prescribing, P=.006). Of the 21 clinicians interviewed, most stated that they preferred the enhanced alert.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that applying CDS best practices with an IS framework to create CDS tools improves implementation success compared with a commercially available tool.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04028557; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04028557.

Project description:BackgroundThe clinical decision-making process in pressure ulcer management is complex, and its quality depends on both the nurse's experience and the availability of scientific knowledge. This process should follow evidence-based practices incorporating health information technologies to assist health care professionals, such as the use of clinical decision support systems. These systems, in addition to increasing the quality of care provided, can reduce errors and costs in health care. However, the widespread use of clinical decision support systems still has limited evidence, indicating the need to identify and evaluate its effects on nursing clinical practice.ObjectiveThe goal of the review was to identify the effects of nurses using clinical decision support systems on clinical decision making for pressure ulcer management.MethodsThe systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. The search was conducted in April 2019 on 5 electronic databases: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL, without publication date or study design restrictions. Articles that addressed the use of computerized clinical decision support systems in pressure ulcer care applied in clinical practice were included. The reference lists of eligible articles were searched manually. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies.ResultsThe search strategy resulted in 998 articles, 16 of which were included. The year of publication ranged from 1995 to 2017, with 45% of studies conducted in the United States. Most addressed the use of clinical decision support systems by nurses in pressure ulcers prevention in inpatient units. All studies described knowledge-based systems that assessed the effects on clinical decision making, clinical effects secondary to clinical decision support system use, or factors that influenced the use or intention to use clinical decision support systems by health professionals and the success of their implementation in nursing practice.ConclusionsThe evidence in the available literature about the effects of clinical decision support systems (used by nurses) on decision making for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is still insufficient. No significant effects were found on nurses' knowledge following the integration of clinical decision support systems into the workflow, with assessments made for a brief period of up to 6 months. Clinical effects, such as outcomes in the incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers, remain limited in the studies, and most found clinically but nonstatistically significant results in decreasing pressure ulcers. It is necessary to carry out studies that prioritize better adoption and interaction of nurses with clinical decision support systems, as well as studies with a representative sample of health care professionals, randomized study designs, and application of assessment instruments appropriate to the professional and institutional profile. In addition, long-term follow-up is necessary to assess the effects of clinical decision support systems that can demonstrate a more real, measurable, and significant effect on clinical decision making.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019127663; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=127663.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Decisional tools have demonstrated their importance in informing manufacturing and commercial decisions in the monoclonal antibody domain. Recent approved therapies in regenerative medicine have shown great clinical benefits to patients. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this review was to investigate what decisional tools are available and what issues and gaps have been raised for their use in regenerative medicine. METHODS:We systematically searched MEDLINE to identify articles on decision support tools relevant to tissue engineering, and cell and gene therapy, with the aim of identifying gaps for future decisional tool development. We included published studies in English including a description of decisional tools in regenerative medicines. We extracted data using a predesigned Excel table and assessed the data both quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS:We identified 9 articles addressing key decisions in manufacturing and product development challenges in cell therapies. The decision objectives, parameters, assumptions, and solution methods were analyzed in detail. We found that all decisional tools focused on cell therapies, and 6 of the 9 reviews focused on allogeneic cell therapy products. We identified no available tools on tissue-engineering and gene therapy products. These studies addressed key decisions in manufacturing and product development challenges in cell therapies, such as choice of technology, through modeling. CONCLUSIONS:Our review identified a limited number of decisional tools. While the monoclonal antibodies and biologics decisional tool domain has been well developed and has shown great importance in driving more cost-effective manufacturing processes and better investment decisions, there is a lot to be learned in the regenerative medicine domain. There is ample space for expansion, especially with regard to autologous cell therapies, tissue engineering, and gene therapies. To consider the problem more comprehensively, the full needle-to-needle process should be modeled and evaluated.

Dataset Information

Clinical decision support tools for osteoporosis disease management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Objective

Data sources

Review methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Clinical decision support tools for osteoporosis disease management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets