Evaluation of clinical decision support systems for diabetes care: An overview of current evidence.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) have shown that clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have the potential to improve diabetes care. However, methods of measuring and presenting outcomes are varied, and conclusions have been inconsistent. In addition, the reporting and methodological quality in this field is unknown, which could affect the integrity and accuracy of research. Therefore, it is difficult to confirm whether CDSSs are effective in improving diabetes care. OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively evaluate the effects of CDSS on diabetes care and to examine the methodological and reporting qualities. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from their inception to February 2017. Systematic reviews investigating the effects of CDSS on diabetes care were included. Outcomes were determined in advance and assessed separately for process of care and patient outcomes. Methodological and reporting qualities were assessed by AMSTAR and PRISMA, respectively. RESULTS: Seventeen SRs, consisting of 222 unique randomized controlled trials and 102 nonrandomized controlled trials, were included. Evidence that CDDS significantly impacted patient outcomes was found in 32 of 102 unique studies of the 15 SRs that examined this effect (31%). A significant impact of CDSS on process of care was found in 117 out of 143 unique studies of the 11 SRs that examined this effect (82%). Ratings for overall scores of AMSTAR resulted in a mean score of 6.5 with a range of scores from 3.5 to 10.0. Reporting quality related to methodological domains was particularly incomplete. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical decision support systems improved the quality of diabetes care by inconsistently improving process of care or patient outcomes. There is evidence that CDSS for providing alerts, reminders, or feedback to participants were most likely to impact diabetes care. Poor reporting of methodological domains, together with qualitative or narrative methods to combine findings, may limit the confidence in research evidence.