SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022
Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital patient safety interventions in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Leveraging technology to improve care: a real-time electronic dashboard within an anticoagulation stewardship service to optimise anticoagulant safety.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Audit and feedback to improve antibiotic prescribing among community physicians in India: A quasi-experimental study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Action design research to develop an interactive dashboard to visualise and compare patient data from Irish general practice (CARA).BMJ open · 2025Article
- Integrating eHealth data analytics into Continuing Professional Development for medical practitioners: an ecosystemic perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Deploying an asthma dashboard to support quality improvement across a nationally representative sentinel network of 7.6 million people in England.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2024Article
- Therapeutic inertia.Australian prescriber · 2024Review
- Digital dashboards for direct oral anticoagulant surveillance, intervention and operational efficiency: uptake, obstacles, and opportunities.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2024Article
- Digital dashboards for oral anticoagulation management: a literature scoping review.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2023Article
- Cognitive perspectives on maintaining physicians' medical expertise: I. Reimagining Maintenance of Certification to promote lifelong learning.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Review
- The Effectiveness of Interactive Dashboards to Optimise Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- A Benchmarking Dashboard System With Supervisory Public Health Nurses: An Implementation Study.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.)Article
- Umbrella review of healthcare dashboards: Applications, benefits, design, and challenges.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectives(1) Systematically review the literature on computerized audit and feedback (e-A&F) systems in healthcare. (2) Compare features of current systems against e-A&F best practices. (3) Generate hypotheses on how e-A&F systems may impact patient care and outcomes.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and CINAHL (Ebsco) databases to December 31, 2020. Two reviewers independently performed selection, extraction, and quality appraisal (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool). System features were compared with 18 best practices derived from Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory. We then used realist concepts to generate hypotheses on mechanisms of e-A&F impact. Results are reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement.
resultsOur search yielded 4301 unique articles. We included 88 studies evaluating 65 e-A&F systems, spanning a diverse range of clinical areas, including medical, surgical, general practice, etc. Systems adopted a median of 8 best practices (interquartile range 6-10), with 32 systems providing near real-time feedback data and 20 systems incorporating action planning. High-confidence hypotheses suggested that favorable e-A&F systems prompted specific actions, particularly enabled by timely and role-specific feedback (including patient lists and individual performance data) and embedded action plans, in order to improve system usage, care quality, and patient outcomes.
conclusionse-A&F systems continue to be developed for many clinical applications. Yet, several systems still lack basic features recommended by best practice, such as timely feedback and action planning. Systems should focus on actionability, by providing real-time data for feedback that is specific to user roles, with embedded action plans. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016048695.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.