Comparative outcome studies of clinical decision support software

limitations to the practice of evidence-based system acquisition

Gaurav J ay Dhiman, Kyle T. Amber, Kenneth Goodman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) assist clinicians with patient diagnosis and treatment. However, inadequate attention has been paid to the process of selecting and buying systems. The diversity of CDSSs, coupled with research obstacles, marketplace limitations, and legal impediments, has thwarted comparative outcome studies and reduced the availability of reliable information and advice for purchasers. We review these limitations and recommend several comparative studies, which were conducted in phases; studies conducted in phases and focused on limited outcomes of safety, efficacy, and implementation in varied clinical settings. Additionally, we recommend the increased availability of guidance tools to assist purchasers with evidence-based purchases. Transparency is necessary in purchasers' reporting of system defects and vendors' disclosure of marketing conflicts of interest to support methodologically sound studies. Taken together, these measures can foster the evolution of evidence-based tools that, in turn, will enable and empower system purchasers to make wise choices and improve the care of patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e13-e20
JournalJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Volume22
Issue numbere1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2015

Fingerprint

Clinical Decision Support Systems
Evidence-Based Practice
Software
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Conflict of Interest
Disclosure
Marketing
Patient Care
Safety
Research
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • clinical decision support systems
  • comparative study
  • marketing
  • medical economics
  • medical ethics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparative outcome studies of clinical decision support software : limitations to the practice of evidence-based system acquisition. / Dhiman, Gaurav J ay; Amber, Kyle T.; Goodman, Kenneth.

In: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 22, No. e1, 01.04.2015, p. e13-e20.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2c77758629d6413c917931776dfdfaa7,
title = "Comparative outcome studies of clinical decision support software: limitations to the practice of evidence-based system acquisition",
abstract = "Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) assist clinicians with patient diagnosis and treatment. However, inadequate attention has been paid to the process of selecting and buying systems. The diversity of CDSSs, coupled with research obstacles, marketplace limitations, and legal impediments, has thwarted comparative outcome studies and reduced the availability of reliable information and advice for purchasers. We review these limitations and recommend several comparative studies, which were conducted in phases; studies conducted in phases and focused on limited outcomes of safety, efficacy, and implementation in varied clinical settings. Additionally, we recommend the increased availability of guidance tools to assist purchasers with evidence-based purchases. Transparency is necessary in purchasers' reporting of system defects and vendors' disclosure of marketing conflicts of interest to support methodologically sound studies. Taken together, these measures can foster the evolution of evidence-based tools that, in turn, will enable and empower system purchasers to make wise choices and improve the care of patients.",
keywords = "clinical decision support systems, comparative study, marketing, medical economics, medical ethics",
author = "Dhiman, {Gaurav J ay} and Amber, {Kyle T.} and Kenneth Goodman",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/jamia/ocu033",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "e13--e20",
journal = "Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA",
issn = "1067-5027",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "e1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative outcome studies of clinical decision support software

T2 - limitations to the practice of evidence-based system acquisition

AU - Dhiman, Gaurav J ay

AU - Amber, Kyle T.

AU - Goodman, Kenneth

PY - 2015/4/1

Y1 - 2015/4/1

N2 - Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) assist clinicians with patient diagnosis and treatment. However, inadequate attention has been paid to the process of selecting and buying systems. The diversity of CDSSs, coupled with research obstacles, marketplace limitations, and legal impediments, has thwarted comparative outcome studies and reduced the availability of reliable information and advice for purchasers. We review these limitations and recommend several comparative studies, which were conducted in phases; studies conducted in phases and focused on limited outcomes of safety, efficacy, and implementation in varied clinical settings. Additionally, we recommend the increased availability of guidance tools to assist purchasers with evidence-based purchases. Transparency is necessary in purchasers' reporting of system defects and vendors' disclosure of marketing conflicts of interest to support methodologically sound studies. Taken together, these measures can foster the evolution of evidence-based tools that, in turn, will enable and empower system purchasers to make wise choices and improve the care of patients.

AB - Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) assist clinicians with patient diagnosis and treatment. However, inadequate attention has been paid to the process of selecting and buying systems. The diversity of CDSSs, coupled with research obstacles, marketplace limitations, and legal impediments, has thwarted comparative outcome studies and reduced the availability of reliable information and advice for purchasers. We review these limitations and recommend several comparative studies, which were conducted in phases; studies conducted in phases and focused on limited outcomes of safety, efficacy, and implementation in varied clinical settings. Additionally, we recommend the increased availability of guidance tools to assist purchasers with evidence-based purchases. Transparency is necessary in purchasers' reporting of system defects and vendors' disclosure of marketing conflicts of interest to support methodologically sound studies. Taken together, these measures can foster the evolution of evidence-based tools that, in turn, will enable and empower system purchasers to make wise choices and improve the care of patients.

KW - clinical decision support systems

KW - comparative study

KW - marketing

KW - medical economics

KW - medical ethics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84958699907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84958699907&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jamia/ocu033

DO - 10.1093/jamia/ocu033

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - e13-e20

JO - Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

JF - Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

SN - 1067-5027

IS - e1

ER -