Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice

  1. Florence Gillaizeau1,
  2. Ellis Chan2,
  3. Ludovic Trinquart1,
  4. Isabelle Colombet3,
  5. RT Walton4,
  6. Myriam Rège-Walther5,
  7. Bernard Burnand5,
  8. Pierre Durieux6,*

Editorial Group: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group

Published Online: 12 NOV 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 12 DEC 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002894.pub3


How to Cite

Gillaizeau F, Chan E, Trinquart L, Colombet I, Walton RT, Rège-Walther M, Burnand B, Durieux P. Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD002894. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002894.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, French Cochrane Center, Paris, France

  2. 2

    Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Paris, France

  3. 3

    Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris Descartes University, INSERM U872 eq20, Medical Informatics Department, Paris, France

  4. 4

    Barts and the London Medical School, Centre for Health Sciences, London, UK

  5. 5

    Lausanne University Hospital, Cochrane Switzerland, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Lausanne, Switzerland

  6. 6

    Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris Descartes University, INSERM U872 eq 22, Department of Public Health and Medical Informatics, Paris, France

*Pierre Durieux, Department of Public Health and Medical Informatics, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris Descartes University, INSERM U872 eq 22, 20 rue Leblanc, Paris, 75015, France. pierre.durieux@egp.aphp.fr. pierdurieux@gmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 12 NOV 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Serum concentrations and therapeutic range, outcome: 1.1 Serum concentrations (mg/L) - part A (SMD > 0 in favour of the intervention).
[Figure 5]
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Serum concentrations and therapeutic range, outcome: 1.2 Serum concentrations (ng/L) - part B (SMD < 0 in favour of the intervention).
[Figure 6]
Figure 6. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Serum concentrations and therapeutic range, outcome: 1.3 Proportion of participants within therapeutic range.
[Figure 7]
Figure 7. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Serum concentrations and therapeutic range, outcome: 1.4 Proportion of participants with toxic drug levels.
[Figure 8]
Figure 8. Forest plot of comparison: 2 Physiological parameters, outcome: 2.1 Oral anticoagulants: % time in target INR range.
[Figure 9]
Figure 9. Forest plot of comparison: 2 Physiological parameters, outcome: 2.2 Insulin: % time in target glucose range.
[Figure 10]
Figure 10. Forest plot of comparison: 2 Physiological parameters, outcome: 2.3 Insulin: mean blood glucose (mg/dL).
[Figure 11]
Figure 11. Forest plot of comparison: 3 Time to achieve therapeutic control, outcome: 3.1 Time to achieve therapeutic range.
[Figure 12]
Figure 12. Forest plot of comparison: 3 Time to achieve therapeutic control, outcome: 3.2 Time to stabilization.
[Figure 13]
Figure 13. Forest plot of comparison: 4 Clinical improvement, outcome: 4.1 Aminoglycoside antibiotics.
[Figure 14]
Figure 14. Forest plot of comparison: 4 Clinical improvement, outcome: 4.2 Anti-rejection drugs.
[Figure 15]
Figure 15. Forest plot of comparison: 5 Clinical adverse events, outcome: 5.1 Death.
[Figure 16]
Figure 16. Forest plot of comparison: 5 Clinical adverse events, outcome: 5.2 Anticoagulants: events.
[Figure 17]
Figure 17. Forest plot of comparison: 5 Clinical adverse events, outcome: 5.3 Anticoagulants: event rates.
[Figure 18]
Figure 18. Forest plot of comparison: 5 Clinical adverse events, outcome: 5.4 Insulin.
[Figure 19]
Figure 19. Forest plot of comparison: 5 Clinical adverse events, outcome: 5.5 Aminoglycoside antibiotics.
[Figure 20]
Figure 20. Forest plot of comparison: 5 Clinical adverse events, outcome: 5.6 Anti-rejection drugs.
[Figure 21]
Figure 21. Forest plot of comparison: 6 Healthcare resources, outcome: 6.1 Length of stay (days).
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Serum concentrations and therapeutic range, Outcome 1 Serum concentrations (mg/L) - part A (SMD > 0 in favour of the intervention).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Serum concentrations and therapeutic range, Outcome 2 Serum concentrations (ng/L) - part B (SMD < 0 in favour of the intervention).
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Serum concentrations and therapeutic range, Outcome 3 Proportion of participants within therapeutic range.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Serum concentrations and therapeutic range, Outcome 4 Proportion of participants with toxic drug levels.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Physiological parameters, Outcome 1 Oral anticoagulants: % time in target INR range.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Physiological parameters, Outcome 2 Insulin: % time in target glucose range.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Physiological parameters, Outcome 3 Insulin: mean blood glucose (mg/dL).
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Time to achieve therapeutic control, Outcome 1 Time to achieve therapeutic range.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Time to achieve therapeutic control, Outcome 2 Time to stabilization.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Clinical improvement, Outcome 1 Aminoglycoside antibiotics.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Clinical improvement, Outcome 2 Anti-rejection drugs.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Clinical adverse events, Outcome 1 Death.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Clinical adverse events, Outcome 2 Anticoagulants: events.
[Analysis 5.3]
Analysis 5.3. Comparison 5 Clinical adverse events, Outcome 3 Anticoagulants: event rates.
[Analysis 5.4]
Analysis 5.4. Comparison 5 Clinical adverse events, Outcome 4 Insulin.
[Analysis 5.5]
Analysis 5.5. Comparison 5 Clinical adverse events, Outcome 5 Aminoglycoside antibiotics.
[Analysis 5.6]
Analysis 5.6. Comparison 5 Clinical adverse events, Outcome 6 Anti-rejection drugs.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Healthcare resources, Outcome 1 Length of stay (days).