Dataset Information

Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Many healthcare professionals use smartphones and tablets to inform patient care. Contemporary research suggests that handheld computers may support aspects of clinical diagnosis and management. This systematic review was designed to synthesise high quality evidence to answer the question; Does healthcare professionals' use of handheld computers improve their access to information and support clinical decision making at the point of care?A detailed search was conducted using Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Science and Social Science Citation Indices since 2001. Interventions promoting healthcare professionals seeking information or making clinical decisions using handheld computers were included. Classroom learning and the use of laptop computers were excluded. Two authors independently selected studies, assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and extracted data. High levels of data heterogeneity negated statistical synthesis. Instead, evidence for effectiveness was summarised narratively, according to each study's aim for assessing the impact of handheld computer use.We included seven randomised trials investigating medical or nursing staffs' use of Personal Digital Assistants. Effectiveness was demonstrated across three distinct functions that emerged from the data: accessing information for clinical knowledge, adherence to guidelines and diagnostic decision making. When healthcare professionals used handheld computers to access clinical information, their knowledge improved significantly more than peers who used paper resources. When clinical guideline recommendations were presented on handheld computers, clinicians made significantly safer prescribing decisions and adhered more closely to recommendations than peers using paper resources. Finally, healthcare professionals made significantly more appropriate diagnostic decisions using clinical decision making tools on handheld computers compared to colleagues who did not have access to these tools. For these clinical decisions, the numbers need to test/screen were all less than 11.Healthcare professionals' use of handheld computers may improve their information seeking, adherence to guidelines and clinical decision making. Handheld computers can provide real time access to and analysis of clinical information. The integration of clinical decision support systems within handheld computers offers clinicians the highest level of synthesised evidence at the point of care. Future research is needed to replicate these early results and to identify beneficial clinical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Mickan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4099138 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review.

Mickan Sharon S Atherton Helen H Roberts Nia Wyn NW Heneghan Carl C Tilson Julie K JK

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20140706

<h4>Background</h4>Many healthcare professionals use smartphones and tablets to inform patient care. Contemporary research suggests that handheld computers may support aspects of clinical diagnosis and management. This systematic review was designed to synthesise high quality evidence to answer the question; Does healthcare professionals' use of handheld computers improve their access to information and support clinical decision making at the point of care?<h4>Methods</h4>A detailed search was c ...[more]

PMID: 24998515

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNursing care is increasingly supported by computerized information systems and decision support aids. Since the advent of handheld computer devices (HCDs), there has been limited exploration of their use in nursing practice.ObjectiveThe study aimed to understand the professional and clinical impacts of the use of mobile health apps in nursing to assist clinical decision-making in acute care settings. The study also aimed to explore the scope of published research and identify key nomenclature with respect to research in this emerging field within nursing practice.MethodsThis scoping review involved a tripartite search of electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar) using preliminary, broad, and comprehensive search terms. The included studies were hand searched for additional citations. Two researchers independently screened the studies for inclusion and appraised quality using structured critical appraisal tools.ResultsOf the 2309 unique studies screened, 28 (1.21%) were included in the final analyses: randomized controlled trials (n=3, 11%) and quasi-experimental (n=9, 32%), observational (n=10, 36%), mixed methods (n=2, 7%), qualitative descriptive (n=2, 7%), and diagnostic accuracy (n=2, 7%) studies. Studies investigated the impact of HCDs on nursing decisions (n=12, 43%); the effectiveness, safety, and quality of care (n=9, 32%); and HCD usability, uptake, and acceptance (n=14, 50%) and were judged to contain moderate-to-high risk of bias. The terminology used to describe HCDs was heterogenous across studies, comprising 24 unique descriptors and 17 individual concepts that reflected 3 discrete technology platforms ("PDA technology," "Smartphone/tablet technology," and "Health care-specific technology"). Study findings varied, as did the range of decision-making modalities targeted by HCD interventions. Interventions varied according to the level of clinician versus algorithmic judgment: unstructured clinical judgment, structured clinical judgment, and computerized algorithmic judgment.ConclusionsThe extant literature is varied but suggests that HCDs can be used effectively to support aspects of acute nursing care. However, there is a dearth of high-level evidence regarding this phenomenon and studies exploring the degree to which HCD implementation may affect acute nursing care delivery workflow. Additional targeted research using rigorous experimental designs is needed in this emerging field to determine the true potential of HCDs in optimizing acute nursing care.

Project description:BackgroundIn the past forty years, many gains have been made in our understanding of the concept of research utilization. While numerous studies exist on professional nurses' use of research in practice, no attempt has been made to systematically evaluate and synthesize this body of literature with respect to the extent to which nurses use research in their clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically identify and analyze the available evidence related to the extent to which nurses use research findings in practice.MethodsThis study was a systematic review of published and grey literature. The search strategy included 13 online bibliographic databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, HAPI, Web of Science, SCOPUS, OCLC Papers First, OCLC WorldCat, ABI Inform, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstracts. The inclusion criteria consisted of primary research reports that assess professional nurses' use of research in practice, written in the English or Scandinavian languages. Extent of research use was determined by assigning research use scores reported in each article to one of four quartiles: low, moderate-low, moderate-high, or high.ResultsFollowing removal of duplicate citations, a total of 12,418 titles were identified through database searches, of which 133 articles were retrieved. Of the articles retrieved, 55 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The 55 final reports included cross-sectional/survey (n = 51) and quasi-experimental (n = 4) designs. A sensitivity analysis, comparing findings from all reports with those rated moderate (moderate-weak and moderate-strong) and strong quality, did not show significant differences. In a majority of the articles identified (n = 38, 69%), nurses reported moderate-high research use.ConclusionsAccording to this review, nurses' reported use of research is moderate-high and has remained relatively consistent over time until the early 2000's. This finding, however, may paint an overly optimistic picture of the extent to which nurses use research in their practice given the methodological problems inherent in the majority of studies. There is a clear need for the development of standard measures of research use and robust well-designed studies examining nurses' use of research and its impact on patient outcomes. The relatively unchanged self-reports of moderate-high research use by nurses is troubling given that over 40 years have elapsed since the first studies in this review were conducted and the increasing emphasis in the past 15 years on evidence-based practice. More troubling is the absence of studies in which attempts are made to assess the effects of varying levels of research use on patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of placebo interventions outside clinical trials is ethically, professionally and legally controversial. Little is known about the frequency and circumstances of placebo use in clinical practice. Our aim was to summarize the available empirical studies addressing these issues.MethodsWe searched PubMed and EMBASE from inception to July 2009 in order to identify cross-sectional surveys, qualitative or longitudinal studies among health care professionals, students or patients which investigated at least one of the following issues--frequency of placebo use or attitudes to, or motivations for, the use of placebo interventions. At least two reviewers extracted information on the study methods, participants and findings. Descriptive summaries were prepared in an iterative process by at least two reviewers per study.ResultsTwenty-two studies from 12 different countries met the inclusion criteria. Most studies had relevant shortcomings. The proportion of respondents reporting that they had applied 'pure' placebos (for example, saline injection) during their professional life varied between 17% and 80% among physicians and between 51% and 100% among nurses, but it seems that the actual frequency of such use seems to be rare. The use of 'impure' or 'active' placebos (for example, antibiotics for viral infections) is likely to be much more frequent. However, it is impossible to make a reliable estimation because there is no agreement of what an impure placebo might be. Studies using qualitative methods or asking participants to judge case examples suggest that motivations and attitudes towards placebo use are complex and health care providers are often faced with a dilemma.ConclusionsAlthough the available evidence is incomplete and confusing at times there can be little doubt that the prevalence of placebo use outside of clinical trials is not negligible and that views and attitudes on placebos use differ considerably among individuals, both health care professionals and patients. Further research is needed to clarify these issues.

Project description:Bicistronic reporter assays have been instrumental for transgene expression, understanding of internal ribosomal entry site (IRES) translation, and identification of novel cap-independent translational elements (CITE). We observed a large methodological variability in the use of bicistronic reporter assays and data presentation or normalization procedures. Therefore, we systematically searched the literature for bicistronic IRES reporter studies and analyzed methodological details, data visualization, and normalization procedures. Two hundred fifty-seven publications were identified using our search strategy (published 1994-2020). Experimental studies on eukaryotic adherent cell systems and the cell-free translation assay were included for further analysis. We evaluated the following methodological details for 176 full text articles: the bicistronic reporter design, the cell line or type, transfection methods, and time point of analyses post-transfection. For the cell-free translation assay, we focused on methods of in vitro transcription, type of translation lysate, and incubation times and assay temperature. Data can be presented in multiple ways: raw data from individual cistrons, a ratio of the two, or fold changes thereof. In addition, many different control experiments have been suggested when studying IRES-mediated translation. In addition, many different normalization and control experiments have been suggested when studying IRES-mediated translation. Therefore, we also categorized and summarized their use. Our unbiased analyses provide a representative overview of bicistronic IRES reporter use. We identified parameters that were reported inconsistently or incompletely, which could hamper data reproduction and interpretation. On the basis of our analyses, we encourage adhering to a number of practices that should improve transparency of bicistronic reporter data presentation and improve methodological descriptions to facilitate data replication.

Project description:IntroductionClinical practice guidelines can improve healthcare processes and patient outcomes, but are often of low quality. Guideline appraisal tools aim to help potential guideline users in assessing guideline quality. We conducted a systematic review of publications describing guideline appraisal tools in order to identify and compare existing tools.MethodsAmong others we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 to May 2011 for relevant primary and secondary publications. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications. On the basis of the available literature we firstly generated 34 items to be used in the comparison of appraisal tools and grouped them into thirteen quality dimensions. We then extracted formal characteristics as well as questions and statements of the appraisal tools and assigned them to the items.ResultsWe identified 40 different appraisal tools. They covered between three and thirteen of the thirteen possible quality dimensions and between three and 29 of the possible 34 items. The main focus of the appraisal tools were the quality dimensions "evaluation of evidence" (mentioned in 35 tools; 88%), "presentation of guideline content" (34 tools; 85%), "transferability" (33 tools; 83%), "independence" (32 tools; 80%), "scope" (30 tools; 75%), and "information retrieval" (29 tools; 73%). The quality dimensions "consideration of different perspectives" and "dissemination, implementation and evaluation of the guideline" were covered by only twenty (50%) and eighteen tools (45%) respectively.ConclusionsMost guideline appraisal tools assess whether the literature search and the evaluation, synthesis and presentation of the evidence in guidelines follow the principles of evidence-based medicine. Although conflicts of interest and norms and values of guideline developers, as well as patient involvement, affect the trustworthiness of guidelines, they are currently insufficiently considered. Greater focus should be placed on these issues in the further development of guideline appraisal tools.

Dataset Information

Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review.

Publications

Use of handheld computers in clinical practice: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets