Trial reportBMC medical education2025
Randomized controlled trial evaluating the benefit of the app-based clinical decision support system for the management of venous thromboembolism.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Application and challenges of the clinical decision support system in hematological diseases].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnticoagulant prescription and management are crucial steps of management of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are designed and developed to aid healthcare professionals in making informed decisions.
objectivesTo develop and assess the efficacy the mobile app-based CDSS for the management of VTE.
methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted, enrolling participants aged ≥ 20 years who were one of the following categories: medical student, intern, internal medicine resident, or hematology fellow. Participants were randomly assigned to either app-based CDSS (DECIDE-COAG
resultsFrom September 2023 through November 2023, a total of 126 participants were enrolled. The mean percentage of accuracy score was significantly higher (95.6%) in participants using app-based CDSS compared with those in control group (41.3%), a mean difference of 54.5%, 95% CI 49.8-59.2, p < 0.001. The satisfaction mean score was 4.57 ± 0.49 for accessibility, 4.73 ± 0.45 for app stability, 4.94 ± 0.25 for user interface, 4.78 ± 0.42 for simplicity, 4.98 ± 0.13 for assistance in decision-making and 4.90 ± 0.30 for overall satisfaction.
conclusionsApp-based CDSS (DECIDE-COAG CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: TCTR20241117004.
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.