Skip to main content

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