Benefits of Clinical Decision Support Systems for the Management of Noncommunicable Chronic Diseases: Targeted Literature Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are designed to assist in health care delivery by supporting medical practice with clinical knowledge, patient information, and other relevant types of health information. CDSSs are integral parts of health care technologies assisting in disease management, including diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring. While electronic medical records (EMRs) serve as data repositories, CDSSs are used to assist clinicians in providing personalized, context-specific recommendations derived by comparing individual patient data to evidence-based guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This targeted literature review (TLR) aimed to identify characteristics and features of both stand-alone and EMR-integrated CDSSs that influence their outcomes and benefits based on published scientific literature. METHODS: A TLR was conducted using the Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases to identify data on CDSSs published in a 10-year frame (2012-2022). Studies on computerized, guideline-based CDSSs used by health care practitioners with a focus on chronic disease areas and reporting outcomes for CDSS utilization were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 49 publications were included in the TLR. Studies predominantly reported on EMR-integrated CDSSs (ie, connected to an EMR database; n=32, 65%). The implementation of CDSSs varied globally, with substantial utilization in the United States and within the domain of cardio-renal-metabolic diseases. CDSSs were found to positively impact "quality assurance" (n=35, 69%) and provide "clinical benefits" (n=20, 41%), compared to usual care. Among CDSS features, treatment guidance and flagging were consistently reported as the most frequent elements for enhancing health care, followed by risk level estimation, diagnosis, education, and data export. The effectiveness of a CDSS was evaluated most frequently in primary care settings (n=34, 69%) across cardio-renal-metabolic disease areas (n=32, 65%), especially in diabetes (n=13, 26%). Studies reported CDSSs to be commonly used by a mixed group (n=27, 55%) of users including physicians, specialists, nurses or nurse practitioners, and allied health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, both EMR-integrated and stand-alone CDSSs showed positive results, suggesting their benefits to health care providers and potential for successful adoption. Flagging and treatment recommendation features were commonly used in CDSSs to improve patient care; other features such as risk level estimation, diagnosis, education, and data export were tailored to specific requirements and collectively contributed to the effectiveness of health care delivery. While this TLR demonstrated that both stand-alone and EMR-integrated CDSSs were successful in achieving clinical outcomes, the heterogeneity of included studies reflects the evolving nature of this research area, underscoring the need for further longitudinal studies to elucidate aspects that may impact their adoption in real-world scenarios.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,063 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,020 | 0,020 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».