Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality assessment for trials

From: The effects of clinical decision support system for prescribing medication on patient outcomes and physician practice performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

References

Was research described as randomized?

Was approach of randomization appropriate?

Was research described as blinding?

Was approach of blinding appropriate?

Was there a presentation of withdrawal and dropouts?

Was there a presentation of the inclusion/exclusion criteria?

Was approach used to assess outcome?

Was the approach of statistical analysis described?

Total

Beeler et al. [25]

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

4

Eckman et al. [26]

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Du et al. [27]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Karlsson et al. [28]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Mazzaglia et al. [29]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

7

Nielsen et al. [30]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Patel et al. [31]

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Akhu-zaheya et al. [32]

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

5

Khonsari et al. [33]

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

4

Christensen et al. [34]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Luitjes et al. [35]

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

7

Buhse et al. [36]

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

5

Perestelo-pérez et al. [37]

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Sáenz et al. [38]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Vervloet et al. [39]

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

6

Vervloet et al. [40]

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

7

Geurts et al. [41]

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

5

Gill et al. [42]

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Petersen et al. [43]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Bourgeois et al. [44]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Juszczyk et al. [45]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

7

Mcdermott et al. [46]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Mcginn et al. [47]

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Mohammed et al. [48]

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

7

Ackerman et al. [49]

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

5

Pop-eleches et al. [50]

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Avansino et al. [51]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

7

Awdishu et al. [52]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Erler et al. [53]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Cox et al. [54]

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

5

Muth et al. [55]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Strom et al. [56]

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Strom et al. [57]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Elliott et al. [58]

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

1

6

Bruxvoort et al. [59]

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

7

Beeler et al. [60]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Duke et al. [61]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Eschmann et al. [62]

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

7

Curtain et al. [5]

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Turchin et al. [6]

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Griffey et al. [63]

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

6

Myers et al. [64]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Van Stiphout et al. [65]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

Willis et al. [66]

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

7

Tamblyn et al. [67]

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

7

Total point earned

        

303

Quality Score

        

82.34

  1. 1 stands for the answer “yes”, and 0 stands for the answer “no”