Search

Background: Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are information technology-based software that provide health professionals with actionable, patient-specific recommendations or guidelines for disease diagnosis, treatment, and management at the point-of-care. These messages are intelligently filtered to enhance the health and clinical care of patients. CDSSs may be integrated with patient electronic health records (EHRs) and evidence-based knowledge.Methods/design: We designed a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patient-specific, evidence-based reminders generated at the point-of-care by a multi-specialty decision support system on clinical practice and the quality of care. We will include all the patients admitted to the internal medicine department of one large general hospital. The primary outcome is the rate at which medical problems, which are detected by the decision support software and reported through the reminders, are resolved (i.e., resolution rates). Secondary outcomes are resolution rates for reminders specific to venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, in-hospital all causes and VTE-related mortality, and the length of hospital stay during the study period.Discussion: The adoption of CDSSs is likely to increase across healthcare systems due to growing concerns about the quality of medical care and discrepancy between real and ideal practice, continuous demands for a meaningful use of health information technology, and the increasing use of and familiarity with advanced technology among new generations of physicians. The results of our study will contribute to the current understanding of the effectiveness of CDSSs in primary care and hospital settings, thereby informing future research and healthcare policy questions related to the feasibility and value of CDSS use in healthcare systems. This trial is seconded by a specialty trial randomizing patients in an oncology setting (ONCO-CODES).Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02577198?term=NCT02577198&rank=1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts in developing guidelines have to be supported by investments on their applica-tion. Medical software may have a role in these initiatives. Two computer programs have been developed: one regarding chronic kidney disease and one about chronic pain man-agement. For six months their use by 104 general practitioners was monitored. At study conclusion, a questionnaire of 13 multiple choice questions was emailed to all participat-ing doctors. To evaluate the clinical benefits for the patients, a GP regularly used the CKD program and provided patients' outcomes and clinical data. The application recorded 108 accesses during 66 work sessions. In the clinical outcomes section of this study, 7 pa-tients out of 21 were diagnosed with CKD. Our study shows a need for programs of the "expert systems" kind: sources devoted to a narrow field of competence, accessed only when needed, in a way that resembles traditional specialist consultation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and causes significant disability after onset. Although it is accepted that immunotherapies for people with MS decrease disease activity, uncertainty regarding their relative safety remains., Objectives: To compare adverse effects of immunotherapies for people with MS or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), and to rank these treatments according to their relative risks of adverse effects through network meta-analyses (NMAs)., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases and trials registers up to March 2022, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies., Selection Criteria: We included participants 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of MS or CIS, according to any accepted diagnostic criteria, who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined one or more of the agents used in MS or CIS, and compared them versus placebo or another active agent. We excluded RCTs in which a drug regimen was compared with a different regimen of the same drug without another active agent or placebo as a control arm., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and pairwise meta-analyses. For NMAs, we used the netmeta suite of commands in R to fit random-effects NMAs assuming a common between-study variance. We used the CINeMA platform to GRADE the certainty of the body of evidence in NMAs. We considered a relative risk (RR) of 1.5 as a non-inferiority safety threshold compared to placebo. We assessed the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes within the NMA according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high., Main Results: This NMA included 123 trials with 57,682 participants . Serious adverse events (SAEs) Reporting of SAEs was available from 84 studies including 5696 (11%) events in 51,833 (89.9%) participants out of 57,682 participants in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of SAEs, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 18 additional people would have a SAE compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that three drugs may decrease SAEs compared to placebo (relative risk [RR], 95% confidence interval [CI]): interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (0.78, 0.66 to 0.94); dimethyl fumarate (0.79, 0.67 to 0.93), and glatiramer acetate (0.84, 0.72 to 0.98). Several drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo: moderate-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.08, 0.88 to 1.31); low-certainty evidence for ocrelizumab (0.85, 0.67 to 1.07), ozanimod (0.88, 0.59 to 1.33), interferon beta-1b (0.94, 0.78 to 1.12), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (0.96, 0.80 to 1.15), natalizumab (0.97, 0.79 to 1.19), fingolimod (1.05, 0.92 to 1.20) and laquinimod (1.06, 0.83 to 1.34); very low-certainty evidence for daclizumab (0.83, 0.68 to 1.02). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the other drugs: low-certainty evidence for cladribine (1.10, 0.79 to 1.52), siponimod (1.20, 0.95 to 1.51), ofatumumab (1.26, 0.88 to 1.79) and rituximab (1.01, 0.67 to 1.52); very low-certainty evidence for immunoglobulins (1.05, 0.33 to 3.32), diroximel fumarate (1.05, 0.23 to 4.69), peg-interferon beta-1a (1.07, 0.66 to 1.74), alemtuzumab (1.16, 0.85 to 1.60), interferons (1.62, 0.21 to 12.72) and azathioprine (3.62, 0.76 to 17.19). Withdrawals due to adverse events Reporting of withdrawals due to AEs was available from 105 studies (85.4%) including 3537 (6.39%) events in 55,320 (95.9%) patients out of 57,682 patients in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of withdrawals, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 31 additional people would withdraw compared to placebo. No drug reduced withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There was very low-certainty evidence (meaning that estimates are not reliable) that two drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo, assuming an upper 95% CI RR limit of 1.5: diroximel fumarate (0.38, 0.11 to 1.27) and alemtuzumab (0.63, 0.33 to 1.19). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the following drugs: low-certainty evidence for ofatumumab (1.50, 0.87 to 2.59); very low-certainty evidence for methotrexate (0.94, 0.02 to 46.70), corticosteroids (1.05, 0.16 to 7.14), ozanimod (1.06, 0.58 to 1.93), natalizumab (1.20, 0.77 to 1.85), ocrelizumab (1.32, 0.81 to 2.14), dimethyl fumarate (1.34, 0.96 to 1.86), siponimod (1.63, 0.96 to 2.79), rituximab (1.63, 0.53 to 5.00), cladribine (1.80, 0.89 to 3.62), mitoxantrone (2.11, 0.50 to 8.87), interferons (3.47, 0.95 to 12.72), and cyclophosphamide (3.86, 0.45 to 33.50). Eleven drugs may have increased withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo: low-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.37, 1.01 to 1.85), glatiramer acetate (1.76, 1.36 to 2.26), fingolimod (1.79, 1.40 to 2.28), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (2.15, 1.58 to 2.93), daclizumab (2.19, 1.31 to 3.65) and interferon beta-1b (2.59, 1.87 to 3.77); very low-certainty evidence for laquinimod (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00), interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (1.54, 1.13 to 2.10), immunoglobulins (1.87, 1.01 to 3.45), peg-interferon beta-1a (3.46, 1.44 to 8.33) and azathioprine (6.95, 2.57 to 18.78); however, very low-certainty evidence is unreliable. Sensitivity analyses including only studies with low attrition bias, drug dose above the group median, or only patients with relapsing remitting MS or CIS, and subgroup analyses by prior disease-modifying treatments did not change these figures. Rankings No drug yielded consistent P scores in the upper quartile of the probability of being better than others for primary and secondary outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: We found mostly low and very low-certainty evidence that drugs used to treat MS may not increase SAEs, but may increase withdrawals compared with placebo. The results suggest that there is no important difference in the occurrence of SAEs between first- and second-line drugs and between oral, injectable, or infused drugs, compared with placebo. Our review, along with other work in the literature, confirms poor-quality reporting of adverse events from RCTs of interventions. At the least, future studies should follow the CONSORT recommendations about reporting harm-related issues. To address adverse effects, future systematic reviews should also include non-randomized studies., (Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

This article is about current challenges to evidence-based medicine (EMB) in Italy. The authors, who share a 20-year commitment to the field of clinical research, discuss what they define as a phase of "stagnation" in practicing and teaching methods and research tactics, both in clinical and academic settings. Early success of EBM cultural movement was not persistent. The authors reason about how the teaching of EBM has remained a niche, concerning few professionals compared to the needs of the country. The authors identify some reasons that might have led to inconsistent attention to research methodology and address ways to strengthen the contribution of academic medicine to clinical research.

Introduction: The knowledge of principles and methods of Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) and the use of Clinical Practice Guidelines to inform clinical decisions are recognised as key instruments to improve the quality of care. In Italy the Parliament has revised the legal system that rules the responsibilities of health professionals and health care safety, prescribing health professionals to adhere to guidelines and good practice recommendations. The objective of the study was to evaluate guidelines and clinical pathways developed at local level and to assess knowledge and attitudes of healthcare workers toward EBM and guidelines., Methods: At the l'ASL 5 Liguria La Spezia we performed a census of all the documents registered as "guidelines" or "clinical pathways" at the Direzione Generale by the end of May 2016. We assessed their methodological quality by the "Recognition Card for Clinical Pathways Production and Revision Activity" prepared by the Ligurian Region. We conducted semi-structured interviews to assess attitudes and knowledge of healthcare workers., Results: We found 17 clinical pathways, 41% contained organizational/management recommendations, and 59% contained mainly clinical recommendations. 41% was produced by assimilating already existing guidelines. 29% did not describe the method of production. Only one document linked directly each recommendation with scientific evidence. 10 healthcare workers out of 32 invited actually accepted to conduct the interview. Respondents showed a positive attitude toward the EBM and guidelines but a poor knowledge of the methodology of production and the instruments and principles for critical appraising of scientific literature. Nobody knew the GRADE approach. The most relevant barriers identified were: lack of time, poor knowledge of English and statistical methods, poor applicability of the international guidelines to local setting and real patients encountered in clinical practice., Discussion: Despite the initiatives of the legislator toward civil responsibility and safety of care that should increase the use of guidelines, we found an overall poor knowledge of the concepts of EBM and method of guidelines production. Though the attitudes of responders to the interview were positive, barriers to use seemed to be predominant and considered more as obstacles than as a stimulus. In peripheral settings or in hospitals of medium/small size, clinical guidelines could remain confined to a merely juridical role, with weak impact on professional practice.

Introduction: One of the aims of Evidence-Based Medicine is to improve quality and appropriateness of care by the expedition of the knowledge transfer process. Computerized Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) are computer programs that provide alerts to the prescribing doctor directly at the moment of medical examination. In fact, alerts are integrated within the single patient electronic health record. CDSS based on the best available and updated evidence and guidelines may be an efficient tool to facilitate the transfer of the latest results from clinical research directly at the bedside, thus supporting decision-making., Objectives: The CODES (COmputerized DEcision Support) trial is a research program funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the Lombardy Region. It aims to evaluate the feasibility of the implementation of a CDSS at the hospital level and to assess its efficacy in daily clinical practice., Methods: The CODES project includes two pragmatic RCTs testing a CDSS (i.e. the EBMeDS - MediDSS) in two large Italian hospitals: the first is a general hospital in Vimercate (Lombardy), the second is an oncologic research center in Meldola (Emilia Romagna). The CDSS supports a full spectrum of decisions: therapy, drug interactions, diagnosis, and management of health care services are covered by a hundreds of reminders. However only few reminders are activated per patient, highlighting crucial problems in the delivery of high-quality care. The two trials have similar design and primary outcome, the rate at which alerts detected by the software are resolved by a decision of the clinicians. The project also includes the assessment of barriers and facilitators in the adoption of these new technologies by hospital staff members and the retrospective evaluation of the repeated risks in prescription habits., Results: The trials are ongoing and currently more than 10,000 patients have been randomized. The qualitative analysis revealed a progressive shift in the perception of the tool. Doctors are now seeing it as a trusted second opinion, available 24/7, which is tailored to the needs of the patient. The retrospective analysis showed the opportunity to achieve a better healthcare quality through an active risk management. Aggregating data from whole hospitals emerge rare drug interactions that otherwise would not be recognizable., Discussion: CDSS are promising tools to support clinicians in everyday practice. They can be used as a real time app or to perform retrospective analyses. These data can provide unique resources to hospital management.

Introduction: Computerized Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) connect health care professionals with high-quality, evidence-based information at the point-of-care to guide clinical decision-making. Current research shows the potential of CDSSs to improve the efficiency and quality of patient care. The mere provision of the technology, however, does not guarantee its uptake. This qualitative study aims to explore the barriers and facilitators to the use of CDSSs as identified by health providers., Methods: The study was performed in three Italian hospitals, each characterized by a different level of familiarity with the CDSS technology. We interviewed frontline physicians, nurses, information technology staff, and members of the hospital board of directors (n=24). A grounded theory approach informed our sampling criteria as well as the data collection and analysis., Results: The adoption of CDSSs by health care professionals can be represented as a process that consists of six "positionings," each corresponding to an individual's use and perceived mastery of the technology. In conditions of low mastery, the CDSS is perceived as an object of threat, an unfamiliar tool that is difficult to control. On the other hand, individuals in conditions of high mastery view the CDSS as a helpful tool that can be locally adapted and integrated with clinicians' competences to fulfil their needs. In the first positionings, the uptake of CDSSs is hindered by representational obstacles. The last positionings, alternatively, featured technical obstacles to CDSS uptake., Discussion: Our model of CDSS adoption can guide hospital administrators interested in the future integration of CDSSs to evaluate their organizational contexts, identify potential challenges to the implementation of the technology, and develop an effective strategy to address them. Our findings also allow reflections concerning the misalignment between most Italian hospitals and the current innovation trends toward the uptake of computerized decision support technologies.