News and articles: BMJ Best Practice in clinical decision support tools reviews


Kwag KH, González-Lorenzo M, Banzi R, et al. Providing doctors with high-quality information: an updated evaluation of web-based point-of-care information summaries. J Med Internet Res 2016:18:e15

Key findings:

Medical and scientific publishers are investing substantial resources towards the development and maintenance of point-of-care summaries. The number of these products has increased since 2008 along with their quality. Best Practice, Dynamed, and UptoDate scored the highest across all dimensions, while others that were marketed as evidence-based were less reliable. Individuals and institutions should regularly assess the value of point-of-care summaries as their quality changes rapidly over time.

McCrate Protus B. Electronic resources review. J Med Lib Assoc. 2014:102:224-225.

Key findings:

This review described how BMJ Best Practice provides a convenient and evidence-based web and mobile point-of-care tool.

Link to a PDF of the study

Pryor M, White D, Potter B, Traill R. Evaluating online diagnostic decision support tools for the clinical setting. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012:178:180-185.

Key findings:

This study examined 11 diagnostic decision support tools at the point of care, using an evaluation instrument that included 6 categories: general information, content, quality control, search, clinical results and other features. BMJ Best Practice ranked highest overall in the 6 clinical case scenarios used.

Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems. A systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012:157:29-43.

Key findings

This systematic review evaluated the effect of clinical decision support systems on clinical outcomes, healthcare processes, workload and efficiency, patient satisfaction, cost, and provider use and implementation in different settings. The 148 trials included supported effectiveness of clinical decision support systems for improving health care processes.

Bedford M, Pettersen K, Minhas R. Strength of evidence and handling uncertainty: practical considerations and general observations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011:64:1272-1274.

Key findings:

BMJ produces evidence-based clinical content. Here the BMJ team presented their insights into how to assess the strength of evidence and how to handle uncertainty when evaluating the medical literature.

Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, et al. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ. 2005:330:765.

Key findings:

This systematic review examined the ability of decision support systems to improve clinical practice and sought the presence of 15 decision support system features whose usefulness had been suggested in the literature. Decision support was found to have improved clinical practice in about two-thirds of the 70 included trials.