Tuyển tập báo cáo các nghiên cứu khoa học quốc tế ngành y học dành cho các bạn tham khảo đề tài:Computerized clinical decision support systems for drug prescribing and management: A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review | Hemens et al. Implementation Science 2011 6 89 http content 6 1 89 Implementation Science IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW Open Access Computerized clinical decision support systems for drug prescribing and management A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review D rì -Ì vs I I_IS-. m I- 1 A I_I c I f I 2 3 4 ỉ I V kl ìt 4 I -s A l I s I S 1 I fs rr-d ỉr i r r IX z-k I I 1 I -s zz -s z -s iKl stt s rrcs 1 Brian J Hemens Anne HolbrooK Mama lonKin Jean A MacKay Lorraine Weise-Kelly lamara Navarro Nancy L WilczynsKi1 and R Brian Haynes1 2 3 for the CCDSS Systematic Review Team Abstract Background Computerized clinical decision support systems CCDSSs for drug therapy management are designed to promote safe and effective medication use. Evidence documenting the effectiveness of CCDSSs for improving drug therapy is necessary for informed adoption decisions. The objective of this review was to systematically review randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of CCDSSs for drug therapy management on process of care and patient outcomes. We also sought to identify system and study characteristics that predicted benefit. Methods We conducted a decision-maKer-researcher partnership systematic review. We updated our earlier reviews 1998 2005 by searching MEDLINE EMBASE EBM Reviews Inspec and other databases and consulting reference lists through January 2010. Authors of 82 of included studies confirmed or supplemented extracted data. We included only randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS for drug therapy management compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect . CCDSS showed improvement if at least 50 of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive. Results Sixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria including 41 new studies since our previous review. Methodological quality was .
