Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35689652›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2022

Effectiveness of clinical dashboards as audit and feedback or clinical decision support tools on medication use and test ordering: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Charis Xuan Xie, Qiuzhe Chen, Cesar A Hincapié, Léonie Hofstetter, Chris G Maher, Gustavo C Machado

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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 22 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Compulsory Indications in Hospital Prescribing Software Tested with Antibacterial Prescriptions.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Charis Xuan XieWolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0029-9159
Qiuzhe ChenInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Cesar A HincapiéDepartment of Chiropractic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich and Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Léonie HofstetterDepartment of Chiropractic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich and Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Chris G MaherInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Gustavo C MachadoInstitute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Zurich · CHQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical dashboards used as audit and feedback (A&F) or clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are increasingly adopted in healthcare. However, their effectiveness in changing the behavior of clinicians or patients is still unclear. This systematic review aims to investigate the effectiveness of clinical dashboards used as CDSS or A&F tools (as a standalone intervention or part of a multifaceted intervention) in primary care or hospital settings on medication prescription/adherence and test ordering.

methodsSeven major databases were searched for relevant studies, from inception to August 2021. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB II scale, and evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Data on trial characteristics and intervention effect sizes were extracted. A narrative synthesis was performed to summarize the findings of the included trials.

resultsEleven randomized trials were included. Eight trials evaluated clinical dashboards as standalone interventions and provided conflicting evidence on changes in antibiotic prescribing and no effects on statin prescribing compared to usual care. Dashboards increased medication adherence in patients with inflammatory arthritis but not in kidney transplant recipients. Three trials investigated dashboards as part of multicomponent interventions revealing decreased use of opioids for low back pain, increased proportion of patients receiving cardiovascular risk screening, and reduced antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections.

conclusionThere is limited evidence that dashboards integrated into electronic medical record systems and used as feedback or decision support tools may be associated with improvements in medication use and test ordering.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug PrescriptionsFeedbackHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnti-Bacterial Agentsaudit and feedbackclinical decision supportdashboardreview

Identifiers

PMID35689652
PMCPMC9471705
OpenAlexW4282921868

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.