Study designs of evaluations included in the review
Studies that used an experimental or quasi-experimental design, including before-and-after studies and time series, were eligible for inclusion.
Specific interventions included in the review
Studies of CPOE systems were eligible for inclusion. The studies compared CPOE with and without computerised decision support systems to no CPOE, paper-based requisition and support systems, and telephone reporting systems, or compared outcomes before and after the introduction of CPOE systems. Some studies compared CPOE combined with computerised decision support systems to CPOE alone.
Participants included in the review
Inclusion criteria were not defined in terms of the participants. Most of the studies were conducted in secondary care among all or specific patient groups, or for all or selected medical staff. One study was conducted among general practitioners and one in a tertiary teaching hospital.
Outcomes assessed in the review
Inclusion criteria were not defined in terms of the outcomes. The outcomes considered in the review were: the test ordering process (including decisions to order tests); test processing within the pathology department; and the application of pathology test results (including the delivery of results and impact on patient outcomes). Only data relating to the application of pathology test results are included in this abstract, as the other sections of the review fall outside the remit of DARE.
The specific outcomes assessed were impact on patient management and time following up results, length of hospital stay and costs, and adverse events and safety.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, although it is unclear whether this was done independently.