Table 1.
Summary of body of evidence for the effect of CDS tools.
| Citation | RR (95% Cl) | Quality appraisal | Effect size rating | Consistencya | Strength of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Increased likelihood of appropriate medication or dose | |||||
| Consistent | Moderate | ||||
| Awdlshu (2015) (9) | 1.89(1.45–2.47) | Good (9) | Moderate | ||
| Bhardwaja (2011) (24) | 1.31 (1.26–1.36) | Good (10) | Moderate | ||
| Chertow (2001) (27) | 1.71 (1.64–1.77) | Fair(7) | Moderate | ||
| Kazeml (2011) (23) | 1.49(1.40–1.59) | Fair(7) | Moderate | ||
| Selller (2009) (22): Residents | 1.43 (0.85–2.38) | Good (8) | Moderate | ||
| Selller (2009) (22): Senior physicians | 0.60(0.3–1.22) | Good (8) | Adverse | ||
| Meta-analysis | 1.48(1.27–1.74) | — | Moderate | Heterogeneous | |
| Increased use and receipt of recommended laboratory tests for monitoring medication safety | |||||
| Consistent | Moderate | ||||
| Galanter, K+ supplementation (2004) (10) | 1.73(1.61–1.85) | Fair(7) | Moderate | ||
| Galanter, dlgoxln concentrations (2004) (10) | 1.21 (1.16–1.26) | Fair(7) | Moderate | ||
| Hoch (2003) (14) | 1.04(1.03–1.05) | Good (8) | Minima | ||
| Matheny (2008) (15) | 1.24(0.71–2.15) | Good (10) | Moderate | ||
| Steele, recommended lab test ordered (2005) (25) | 1.44(1.27–1.63) | Good (9) | Moderate | ||
| Steele, Incorrect medication order stopped (2005) (25) | 1.97(1.26–3.08) | Good (9) | Moderate | ||
| Meta-analysis | 1.40(1.05–1.87) | — | Moderate | Heterogeneous | |
| Compliance with guidelines and recommendations | |||||
| Inconsistent | Insufficient | ||||
| Judge (2006) (26) | 1.11 (1.00–1.22) | Good (8) | Minima | ||
| Riggio (2009) (16) | 0.66(0.44–0.99) | Good (9) | Adverse | ||
| Reduction in adverse drug events | |||||
| Inconsistent | Moderate | ||||
| Evans (1998) (8) | 0.3(0.10–0.51) | Fair(7) | Substantial | ||
| Gurwltz (2008) (27) | 1.06(0.92–1.23) | Good (8) | Minima | ||
| Mullet (2001) (28) | 0.85(0.38–1.89) | Fair(7) | Minima | ||
| Rind (1994) (7) | 0.45 (0.22–0.94)b | Good (9) | Substantial | ||
| Steele (2005) (25) | 0.41 (0.10–1.77) | Good (9) | Substantial | ||
| Meta-analysis | 0.69 (0.46–1.03) | — | Moderate | Heterogeneous |
a
Consistency of the body of literature is a qualitative assessment of the direction of the effect. The body of literature Is considered consistent if the direction of the effect Is the same for all or almost all studies. The homogeneity of the studies In the meta-analyses Is a statistical test and was evaluated by the χ2 test for heterogeneity.
b
Calculated from presented data.