Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Characteristics of randomized trials on CDSS effect on BP or LDL cholesterol

From: The effect of computerized decision support systems on cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author, year of publication Superiority/ Non-inferiority Inclusion period Follow up Guideline adhered Country Type of practice Prevention: primary, secondary or both Number of participants Age (mean (sd) or median (range)
CDSS Usual Care CDSS Usual Care
Patients with an indication for CVRM
 Anchala et.al, 2015 [65] Superiority Aug 2011- March 2012 12 months NR India PCP Primary 840 783 NR *** NR
 Hicks et al, 2008 [66] Superiority July 2003 – Feb 2005 12 months JNC VI + VII USA PCP Both (*) 786 1048 64 61
 Montgomery et.al, 2000 [67] Superiority Sept 1996 – Sept 1998 12 months NR UK PCP Both (1–17% secondary) 229 157 71 (6) 71 (5)
 Roumie et. al, 2006 [68] Superiority July 2003 – Dec 2003 6 months JNC-VII USA Hospital/PCP Both (*) 547 324 65.5 (12.0) 65.1 (11.9)
 Eaton et.al, 2011 [69] Superiority Oct 2004 - May 3005 12 months ATP III USA PCP Both (*) 2000 2105 46.7 ()6.3) 46.4 (8.4)
 Gill et.al, 2009 [70] NR Nov 2005 – Oct 2006 12 months ATP III USA PCP Both (**) 26,696 37,454 NR *** NR
 Lester et al, 2006 [71] Superiority July 2003 – July 2004 12 months NR USA PCP Secondary 118 117 64.3 (14.5) 62.4 (13.3)
Patients with type II diabetes
 Ali et.al, 2016 [72] Superiority Jan 2011 – June 2012 24–36 months ADA India and Pakistan Outpatient clinics Both (6.8–39.4% secondary 575 571 54.2 (9.2) 54.2 (9.2)
 Cleveringa et.al, 2008 [73] Non- inferiority March 2005 – Aug 2007 12 months Dutch CVRM NL PCP Both (47.1 and 63.3% secondary) 1699 1692 65.2 (11.3) 65.0 (11.0)
 Glasgow et.al, 2005 [74] Superiority 2001–2002 12 months NR USA PCP Both (*) 379 354 62 (1.4) 64 (1.3)
 Grant et.al, 2008 [75] Superiority July 2005 – Sept 2007 12 months NR USA PCP NR 126 118 58.8 (10.1) 53.3 (12.3)
 Holbrook et.al, 2009 [76] Superiority 2002–2003 5.9 months (mean) American/ Canadian Diabetes Association Canada PCP Both (5.5–19% secondary) 253 258 61.0 (13.1) 60.5 (11.9)
 Ilag et.al, 2003 [77] Superiority Oct 1999 – Sept 2000 2 years NR USA University affiliated PCP NR 83 71 59 (14) 59 (120
 Maclean et.al, 2009 [78] Superiority June 2003 – Jan 2005 2 years NR Canada PCP with hospital based clinical laboratories NR 3886 3526 62.4 (19–99) 63.5 (18–97)
 Mathers et.al, 2012 [79] Superiority 2008–2011 12 moths NICE UK PCP Both (3.2–31.1% secondary) 95 80 66 (39–82) 62 (42–87
 Meigs et.al, 2003 [80] Superiority May 1998 – April 1999 12 months NR USA Hospital based internal medicine clinic Both (52.4–50.9% secondary) 307 291 68 (12) 67 (12)
 O’Connor et.al, 2011 [81] NR Oct 2006 – May 2007 6 months NR USA PCP Both (11.5–23.4% secondary) 1194 1362 57.0 (10.7) 57.5 (10.1)
  1. * distributions not reported; ** only specified categories of cardiovascular risk (from total study population: 18.6% high risk; 16.4 medium risk, 65% low risk); *** Presented percentages per age category, no overall mean/median age
  2. NR not reported, RCT randomized controlled trial, PCP primary care practice, USA United States of America, UK United Kingdom, NL The Netherlands, JNC Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure, ATP III Adult Treatment Panel III, ADA American Diabetes Association, NICE the National Institute for health and Care Excellence. * Superiority although not powered for within site variation