g. disease-specific or health-related quality of life). In 14 of the 16 (88%) studies Antiinfection Compound Library price reporting

prescribing outcomes, analyses were based on 90% or more of participants at baseline. In seven studies, the authors reported statistical analyses were adjusted for possible clustering effects. Of 20 studies with a comparison group, nine addressed the issue of possible contamination of the study groups (for example, physicians or pharmacists were only allocated sessions with intervention or control patients). Table 5 summarises the number of studies reporting at least one positive outcome and statistically significant improvement in favour of the CDSS on the majority (≥50%) of outcomes. All 21 studies reported at least one positive outcome (prescribing,

clinical or patient); two-thirds had statistically significant results in favour of CDSS on the majority of outcomes (Table 5). Studies addressing drug-safety issues were more likely to report statistically significant changes in the desired direction on the majority of outcomes than QUM studies (91 versus Depsipeptide price 40% studies with statistically significant changes on the majority of outcomes reported). This difference in proportions was statistically significant (P= 0.01) More studies showed CDSS benefits if systems were conducted in institutional rather than ambulatory care settings (88% of studies reporting statistically significant changes on the majority of outcomes versus 54%), were user-initiated compared to system-initiated (100 versus 88%), and involved CDSS alone rather than multi-faceted interventions (75 versus 62%). However, none of the differences in proportions for these comparisons was statistically significant.

Studies reporting prescribing outcomes, a surrogate measure, rather than clinical outcomes were more likely to show positive results (100 versus 0% of studies reporting these outcomes, P= 0.002). None of the five studies reporting patient outcomes demonstrated statistically significant changes on the majority of these outcomes. There were too few studies across the individual Evodiamine clinical domains to draw any conclusions about the impact of CDSS in specific clinical areas. All six studies reporting prescribing outcomes demonstrated at least one measure in favour of the CDSS and three reported significant improvements on the majority of prescribing outcomes. Of the latter, two[16,17] used the same methods and intervention to increase prescribing of secondary prevention medications in patients with coronary heart disease; the only difference was the setting (teaching hospital, community hospital). The third study[22] addressed switching calcium-channel blockers to other antihypertensive agents and dose changes for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in the setting of a US Veterans Affairs clinic. None of the QUM studies reported significant improvements on the majority of clinical or patient outcomes assessed.