SynthesisAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2026
Strategies and outcomes of CDSS implementation for antimicrobial stewardship in hospital settings: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOptimal implementation strategies and clinical outcomes of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) for antimicrobial prescribing in hospital settings have not been systemically evaluated. This review explores how CDSS for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) have been implemented in secondary and tertiary care, focusing on strategies used, clinical and implementation outcomes.
methodsA systematic search was conducted including studies published up to December 2022. Primary studies describing CDSS implementation strategies in secondary and tertiary care were included. Strategies were analysed using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) framework. Implementation outcomes reported in the studies were extracted and categorized according to Proctor's framework. Quality assessment was performed using the Integrated quality Criteria for the Review Of Multiple Study designs (ICROMS).
resultsScreening of 2,189 papers identified 12 studies meeting inclusion criteria, all focusing on antimicrobial prescribing in high-income countries. Most CDSS were expert systems (n = 11), primarily designed for infectious disease physicians (n = 7). Pre-implementation assessments, such as workflow analysis, user surveys and multidisciplinary meetings, were conducted in only five of the 12 studies. Studies used a median of 11 out of 73 ERIC implementation strategies. The most frequently reported strategies belonged to the following ERIC categories: developing stakeholder interrelationships (n = 11), training and educating users (n = 11), evaluative strategies (n = 10), provision of interactive assistance (n = 5), adaptation and tailoring to context (n = 5). In contrast, strategies aimed at supporting clinicians (n = 3) and changing infrastructure (n = 2) were less commonly used. No study reported strategies related to patient and service user engagement or financial strategies. Clinical outcomes were considered effective in two studies and partially effective in four, while the remaining studies did not evaluate them. A median of three implementation outcomes was reported per study, with appropriateness (n = 10), adoption (n = 9) and acceptability (n = 9) being the most examined. Overall, initial adoption was slow but improved over time, enhancing compliance with policy indicators.
conclusionsThe implementation strategies of CDSS for AMS in hospital settings are variably reported, with many studies providing limited detail on strategy selection, application, or outcomes, highlighting the need for more systematic and comprehensive evaluation in future research.
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.