Table 2.

Body-of-Evidence Qualitative Analysis for Computerized Provider Order Entry Practice^a

Study	Quality Rating	Effect Size Rating
Bansal et al, 200124	Fair	Minimal
Bates et al, 199925	Fair	Moderateb
Bates et al, 199726	Fair	Minimal
Bridges et al, 201427	Good	Moderateb
Fang et al, 201428	Good	Substantialb
Feldman et al, 201329	Good	Substantialb
Georgiou et al, 201130	Fair	Minimal
Horn et al, 201431	Fair	Cannot be determined
Hwang et al, 200232	Good	Substantial
Kahan et al, 200933	Good	Substantialb
Le et al, 201534	Good	Substantialb
Li et al, 201435	Fair	Moderateb
Lippi et al, 201536	Good	Substantialb
Love et al, 201537	Fair	Minimalb
May et al, 200638	Good	Minimalb
Olson et al, 201539	Good	Substantialb
Pageler et al, 201340	Good	Substantialb
Probst et al, 201341	Fair	Minimalb
Procop et al, 201542	Fair	Cannot be determined
Shalev et al, 200943	Good	Minimalb
Solis et al, 201544	Fair	Substantial
Vardy et al, 200545	Fair	Minimal
Waldron et al, 201446	Good	Substantialb
Westbrook et al, 200647	Good	Minimal

^aOverall strength of evidence of effectiveness rating is “high”: 9 studies were good/substantial, 1 study was good/moderate, 1 study was fair/substantial, 2 studies were fair/moderate, 3 studies were good/minimal, 6 studies were fair/minimal, 2 studies were standard effect measure cannot be determined, and 5 studies were excluded.

^b P < .05.