Reviewing the impact of computerized provider order entry on clinical outcomes: The quality of systematic reviews.

Weir CR, Staggers N, Laukert T. Reviewing the impact of computerized provider order entry on clinical outcomes: The quality of systematic reviews. International journal of medical informatics. 2012 Apr 1; 81(4):219-31.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 02-097 – Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Computer-based Feedback Implementations

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

PURPOSE: Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) is central to current efforts at improving clinical care. Understanding the quality of the evidence for CPOE is important to the practical decision of implementation, patient safety and future design efforts. This paper presents the results of a systematic analysis of the quality of systematic reviews of empirical CPOE research. METHODS: The systematic search process included PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, INSPEC, and PsychInfo databases from the years 1987-mid 2010 in English only. All reviews with a focus on CPOE, electronic ordering, Electronic Health Record, or Health Information Technology were included. Studies were excluded if they did not mention a systematic review in the title or text, report a formal search process, report results of the search, or specifically include a separate section on CPOE in the results. Quality was assessed using systematic criteria developed by Oxman and Guyatt, QUOROM, and PRISMA. All three authors conducted the reviews independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Descriptive data was extracted. RESULTS: The search process yielded 185 initial unique references with 13 final reviews meeting the inclusion criteria. The rating of overall quality in the Oxman and Guyatt scale averaged 4.9 out of a possible 7 and the average mean of the sum of the other questions was 5.69. The overall QUOROM/PRISMA ratings averaged 63% completion and ranging from 45% to 81%. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of these reviews were moderate. Only one study conducted a full quantitative synthesis, and overall heterogeneity was reported as very high in the 3 studies that measured it. Recommendations emphasize clarifying the phenomenon of CPOE by avoiding reporting conclusions across sub-group analyses, increasing emphasis on the development of theoretical models, including more quantitative assessments, and increasing breadth of outcomes.