scholarly journals Clinical Decision Support Systems for Diagnosis in Primary Care: A Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (16) ◽  
pp. 8435
Author(s):  
Taku Harada ◽  
Taiju Miyagami ◽  
Kotaro Kunitomo ◽  
Taro Shimizu
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Chronic Diseases ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision

Diagnosis is one of the crucial tasks performed by primary care physicians; however, primary care is at high risk of diagnostic errors due to the characteristics and uncertainties associated with the field. Prevention of diagnostic errors in primary care requires urgent action, and one of the possible methods is the use of health information technology. Its modes such as clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been demonstrated to improve the quality of care in a variety of medical settings, including hospitals and primary care centers, though its usefulness in the diagnostic domain is still unknown. We conducted a scoping review to confirm the usefulness of the CDSS in the diagnostic domain in primary care and to identify areas that need to be explored. Search terms were chosen to cover the three dimensions of interest: decision support systems, diagnosis, and primary care. A total of 26 studies were included in the review. As a result, we found that the CDSS and reminder tools have significant effects on screening for common chronic diseases; however, the CDSS has not yet been fully validated for the diagnosis of acute and uncommon chronic diseases. Moreover, there were few studies involving non-physicians.

Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems for Prescribing in Primary Care: Main Characteristics and Implementation Impact. Protocol of an Evidence and Gap Map.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hector Acosta-Garcia ◽  
Ingrid Ferrer-López ◽  
Juan Ruano-Ruiz ◽  
Bernardo Santos-Ramos ◽  
Teresa Molina-López
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Library

Abstract Background Computerized clinical decision support systems are used by clinicians at the point-of-care to improve quality of healthcare processes (prescribing error prevention, adherence to clinical guidelines...) and clinical outcomes (preventive, therapeutic, and diagnostics). Attempts to summarize results of computerized clinical decision support systems to support prescription in primary care have been challenging, and most systematic reviews and meta-analyses failed due to an extremely high degree of heterogeneity present among the included primary studies. The aim of our study will be to synthesize the evidence, considering all methodological factors that could explain these differences, and to build an evidence and gap map to identify important remaining research questions. Methods A literature search will be conducted from January 2010 onwards in Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text and abstract data. The study methodological quality and risk of bias will be appraised using appropriate tools if applicable. A flow diagram with the screened studies will be presented, and all included studies will be displayed using interactive evidence and gap maps. Results will be reported in accordance with recommendations from The Campbell Collaboration on the development of evidence and gap maps. Discussion Evidence behind computerized clinical decision support systems to support prescription use in primary care, has so far been difficult to be synthesized. Evidence and gap maps represent an innovative approach that has emerged and is increasingly being used to address a broader research question, where multiple types of intervention and outcomes reported may be evaluated. Broad inclusion criteria have been chosen with regards to study designs, in order to collect all available information. Regarding the limitations we will only include English and Spanish language studies from the last 10 years, we will not perform a grey literature search, and we will not carry out a meta-analysis due to the predictable heterogeneity of available studies. Systematic Review registration: This study is registered in Open Science Framework https://bit.ly/2RqKrWp

scholarly journals Diagnosis of Rare Diseases: a scoping review of clinical decision support systems

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jannik Schaaf ◽  
Martin Sedlmayr ◽  
Johanna Schaefer ◽  
Holger Storf
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Data Integration ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision

Abstract Background Rare Diseases (RDs), which are defined as diseases affecting no more than 5 out of 10,000 people, are often severe, chronic and life-threatening. A main problem is the delay in diagnosing RDs. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) for RDs are software systems to support clinicians in the diagnosis of patients with RDs. Due to their clinical importance, we conducted a scoping review to determine which CDSSs are available to support the diagnosis of RDs patients, whether the CDSSs are available to be used by clinicians and which functionalities and data are used to provide decision support. Methods We searched PubMed for CDSSs in RDs published between December 16, 2008 and December 16, 2018. Only English articles, original peer reviewed journals and conference papers describing a clinical prototype or a routine use of CDSSs were included. For data charting, we used the data items “Objective and background of the publication/project”, “System or project name”, “Functionality”, “Type of clinical data”, “Rare Diseases covered”, “Development status”, “System availability”, “Data entry and integration”, “Last software update” and “Clinical usage”. Results The search identified 636 articles. After title and abstracting screening, as well as assessing the eligibility criteria for full-text screening, 22 articles describing 19 different CDSSs were identified. Three types of CDSSs were classified: “Analysis or comparison of genetic and phenotypic data,” “machine learning” and “information retrieval”. Twelve of nineteen CDSSs use phenotypic and genetic data, followed by clinical data, literature databases and patient questionnaires. Fourteen of nineteen CDSSs are fully developed systems and therefore publicly available. Data can be entered or uploaded manually in six CDSSs, whereas for four CDSSs no information for data integration was available. Only seven CDSSs allow further ways of data integration. thirteen CDSS do not provide information about clinical usage. Conclusions Different CDSS for various purposes are available, yet clinicians have to determine which is best for their patient. To allow a more precise usage, future research has to focus on CDSSs RDs data integration, clinical usage and updating clinical knowledge. It remains interesting which of the CDSSs will be used and maintained in the future.

scholarly journals Minimizing Symptom-based Diagnostic Errors Using Weighted Input Variables and Fuzzy Logic Rules in Clinical Decision Support Systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 1567-1575
Keyword(s):  
Fuzzy Logic ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Diagnostic Errors ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Input Variables

ThisstudycoversanapproachtowardsminimizingDiseasediagnosticerrorsusingweightedinputvariablesandFuzzyLogicruleswithmultiphasediagnosticengine.Theweightswereappliedbecausedifferentsymptomsmayhavedifferentdegreesofimportanceindifferentdiseases.Thisistoensurethatrecommendationsfordiseaseconfirmationbasedonsymptomsreturngoodpercentageoftruepositiveandtruenegatives.Thestudycreatesanenhanced,accurateandprecisesystemformedicaldiagnosisevenwhenonlythesymptomsareconsidered.Inordertoevaluatethemodel,fourcategoriesofdiagnoseswerecarriedoutwithoutusingthemodelatthefirstinstanceandusingthemodelatthesecondinstancewith50patientsdoneat4differentdiagnosticinstances.Thetruepositive(TP)andtheFalsenegativestatisticswereobtainedfromwherethefalsepositiverate(TPR)orsensitivityandfalsepositiverate(FPR)werederived.ThegraphofTPRvsFPRwasplottedfromwherethequalityofdiagnosescouldbegottenfromtheReceiverOperatingCharacteristics(ROC)space.Theresultshowsthatsensitivity,whichistheabilityofatesttocorrectlyidentifythosewiththediseaseorTruePositiveRate,andspecificity,whichistheabilityofthetesttocorrectlyidentifythosewithoutthediseasealsocalledTrueNegativeRateTNRstoodat87%and86%respectivelyusingthedevelopedmodelandthesameparameteryielded72%and56%respectivelywithoutusingthemodel.Theresultalsoshowsthatthefalsepositiverate(FPR)whichindicatesthedegreeoffalsealarmis19%usingthenewmodelwhileitis44%withoutusingthemodel.Thisresultshowsthatthelikelihoodofmakingwrongclinicaldiagnosticdecisionsismuchlowerwiththisapproach

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document