Table 2. Features that Contribute to CDSS Recommendation Adherence, by Author.

Citation	Study Type/Number of Studies in Analysis	Features Evaluated	Successful Features (evidence)/Recommendations
[26]	Systemic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials/n=70	Integration with charting or order entry	Automatic Provision of decision support as part of clinician workflow; OR 112 (12.9, infinity)
		Computer-based generation of decision support	Provision at time and location of decision making; OR15.4 (1.3, 300.6)
		Local user involvement in development	Provision of a recommendation, not just an assessment; OR 7.1 (1.3, 49.0)
		Clinician-system interactive features	Computer-based generation of decision support; OR 6.3 (1.2,45)
		Automatic Provision of decision support as part of clinician workflow
		Provision at time and location of decision making
		Request documentation of reason for not following system recommendations
		Provision of a recommendation, not just an assessment
		Promotion of action rather than inaction
		Justification via provision of research evidence/reasoning
		Provision of Decision Support results to both clinician and patient
		CDSS accompanied by period performance feedback
		CDSS accompanied by conventional education
[8]	Meta-analysis of 91 randomized controlled trials	Integration with charting or order entry	Automatic Provision of decision support as part of clinician workflow; OR 1.45 to 1.85*
		Computer based generation of decision support	Provision at time and location of decision making; OR 1.35 to 1.78*
		Local user involvement in development	Provision of a recommendation, not just an assessment; OR 1.5 to 2.01*
		Clinician-system interactive features	Integration with charting or order entry; OR 1.47 to 1.67*
		Automatic Provision of decision support as part of clinician workflow	No need for additional clinician data entry; OR 1.43 to 1.78*
		Provision at time and location of decision making	Promotion of action rather than inaction; OR 1.28 to 1.71*
		Request documentation of reason for not following system recommendations	Provision of Decision Support results to both clinician and patient; OR 1.18 to 1.97*
		Provision of a recommendation, not just an assessment	Local user involvement in the development process; OR 1.45 to 1.90
		Promotion of action rather than inaction
		Justification via provision of research evidence/reasoning
		Provision of Decision Support results to both clinician and patient
		CDSS accompanied by period performance feedback
		CDSS accompanied by conventional education
		No need for additional clinician data entry
[27]	Meta-regression analysis of 162 randomized controlled trials	Primary Factor Set:	Systems providing advice for patients in addition to practitioners; OR 2.77 (1.07 to 7.17)
		Some of study’s authors are also system’s developers	Required practitioners to provide a reason for over-ride; OR 11.23 (1.98 to 63.72)
		System provides advice automatically within practitioner’s workflow	Were evaluated by their developers; OR 4.35 (1.66 to 11.44)
		System provides advice at time of care
		Advice presented in electronic charting or order entry systems
		Provides advice for patients
		Requires reason for over-ride

*depends on type of care intervention