Late Onset Diaphragmatic Hernia: A Forgotten Etiology of Recurrent Vomiting in the Adolescent Population.

Diaphragmatic hernia is a rare disorder in adolescents with oftentimes delayed diagnosis due to late-onset and non-specific clinical manifestations. In this report, we present a case of diaphragmatic hernia in an 18-year-old male, where initial diagnosis was complicated by confounding factors of type 1 diabetes mellitus and cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. This case highlights the importance of having a high index of suspicion for diaphragmatic hernia in patients with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms to ensure timely recognition and surgical intervention.

Effectiveness of a Hospital-Based Computerized Decision Support System on Clinician Recommendations and Patient Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Sophisticated evidence-based information resources can filter medical evidence from the literature, integrate it into electronic health records, and generate recommendations tailored to individual patients. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of a computerized clinical decision support system (CDSS) that preappraises evidence and provides health professionals with actionable, patient-specific recommendations at the point of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial among internal medicine wards of a large Italian general hospital. All analyses in this randomized clinical trial followed the intent-to-treat principle. Between November 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group, in which CDSS-generated reminders were displayed to physicians, or to the control group, in which reminders were generated but not shown. Data were analyzed between February 1 and July 31, 2018. Interventions: Evidence-Based Medicine Electronic Decision Support (EBMEDS), a commercial CDSS covering a wide array of health conditions across specialties, was integrated into the hospital electronic health records to generate patient-specific recommendations. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the resolution rate, the rate at which medical problems identified and alerted by the CDSS were addressed by a change in practice. Secondary outcomes included the length of hospital stay and in-hospital all-cause mortality. Results: In this randomized clinical trial, 20 563 patients were admitted to the hospital. Of these, 6480 (31.5%) were admitted to the internal medicine wards (study population) and randomized (3242 to CDSS and 3238 to control). The mean (SD) age of patients was 70.5 (17.3) years, and 54.5% were men. In total, 28 394 reminders were generated throughout the course of the trial (median, 3 reminders per patient per hospital stay; interquartile range [IQR], 1-6). These messages led to a change in practice in approximately 4 of 100 patients. The resolution rate was 38.0% (95% CI, 37.2%-38.8%) in the intervention group and 33.7% (95% CI, 32.9%-34.4%) in the control group, corresponding to an odds ratio of 1.21 (95% CI, 1.11-1.32; P < .001). The length of hospital stay did not differ between the groups, with a median time of 8 days (IQR, 5-13 days) for the intervention group and a median time of 8 days (IQR, 5-14 days) for the control group (P = .36). In-hospital all-cause mortality also did not differ between groups (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.17; P = .59). Alert fatigue did not differ between early and late study periods. Conclusions and Relevance: An international commercial CDSS intervention marginally influenced routine practice in a general hospital, although the change did not statistically significantly affect patient outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02577198.

Comparison of statins for secondary prevention in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Statins may prevent recurrent ischemic events after ischemic stroke. Determining which statin to use remains controversial. We aimed to summarize the evidence for the use of statins in secondary prevention for patients with ischemic stroke by comparing benefits and harms of various statins. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing statins in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL up to July 2017. Two authors extracted data and appraised risks of bias. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) to compare statins versus placebo/no statin, and network meta-analyses using frequentist random-effects models to compare statins through indirect evidence. We used GRADE to rate the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and all strokes. Secondary outcomes were different types of strokes, cardiovascular events, and adverse events. RESULTS: We identified nine trials (10,741 patients). No head-to-head RCTs were found. The median follow-up period was 2.5 years. Statins did not seem to modify all stroke and all-cause mortality outcomes; they were associated with a decreased risk of ischemic stroke (odds ratio, OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.93]; absolute risk difference, ARD, - 1.6% [95% CI, - 2.6 to - 0.6%]), ischemic stroke or TIA (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.87]; ARD, - 4.2% [95% CI, - 6.2 to - 2.1%]), and cardiovascular event (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.83]; ARD, - 5.4% [95% CI, - 6.8 to - 3.6%]), and did not seem to modify rhabdomyolysis, myalgia, or rise in creatine kinase. In the comparison of different statins, moderate- to high-quality evidence indicated that differences between pharmaceutical products seemed modest, with high doses (e.g., atorvastatin 80 mg/day and simvastatin 40 mg/day) associated with the greatest benefits. TSA excluded random error as a cause of the findings for ischemic stroke and cardiovascular event outcomes. Evidence for increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke was sensitive to the exclusion of the SPARCL trial. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence strongly suggests that statins are associated with a reduction in the absolute risk of ischemic strokes and cardiovascular events. Differences in effects among statins were modest, signaling potential therapeutic equivalence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018079112.

E-learning for health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The use of e-learning, defined as any educational intervention mediated electronically via the Internet, has steadily increased among health professionals worldwide. Several studies have attempted to measure the effects of e-learning in medical practice, which has often been associated with large positive effects when compared to no intervention and with small positive effects when compared with traditional learning (without access to e-learning). However, results are not conclusive. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of e-learning programmes versus traditional learning in licensed health professionals for improving patient outcomes or health professionals' behaviours, skills and knowledge. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and three trial registers up to July 2016, without any restrictions based on language or status of publication. We examined the reference lists of the included studies and other relevant reviews. If necessary, we contacted the study authors to collect additional information on studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials assessing the effectiveness of e-learning versus traditional learning for health professionals. We excluded non-randomised trials and trials involving undergraduate health professionals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach and standardised the outcome effects using relative risks (risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR)) or standardised mean difference (SMD) when possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 randomised trials involving 5679 licensed health professionals (4759 mixed health professionals, 587 nurses, 300 doctors and 33 childcare health consultants).When compared with traditional learning at 12-month follow-up, low-certainty evidence suggests that e-learning may make little or no difference for the following patient outcomes: the proportion of patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of less than 100 mg/dL (adjusted difference 4.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.3 to 7.9, N = 6399 patients, 1 study) and the proportion with glycated haemoglobin level of less than 8% (adjusted difference 4.6%, 95% CI -1.5 to 9.8, 3114 patients, 1 study). At 3- to 12-month follow-up, low-certainty evidence indicates that e-learning may make little or no difference on the following behaviours in health professionals: screening for dyslipidaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.06, 6027 patients, 2 studies) and treatment for dyslipidaemia (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.48, 5491 patients, 2 studies). It is uncertain whether e-learning improves or reduces health professionals' skills (2912 health professionals; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and it may make little or no difference in health professionals' knowledge (3236 participants; 11 studies; low-certainty evidence).Due to the paucity of studies and data, we were unable to explore differences in effects across different subgroups. Owing to poor reporting, we were unable to collect sufficient information to complete a meaningful 'Risk of bias' assessment for most of the quality criteria. We evaluated the risk of bias as unclear for most studies, but we classified the largest trial as being at low risk of bias. Missing data represented a potential source of bias in several studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to traditional learning, e-learning may make little or no difference in patient outcomes or health professionals' behaviours, skills or knowledge. Even if e-learning could be more successful than traditional learning in particular medical education settings, general claims of it as inherently more effective than traditional learning may be misleading.

What hinders the uptake of computerized decision support systems in hospitals? A qualitative study and framework for implementation.

BACKGROUND: Advanced Computerized Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) assist clinicians in their decision-making process, generating recommendations based on up-to-date scientific evidence. Although this technology has the potential to improve the quality of patient care, its mere provision does not guarantee uptake: even where CDSSs are available, clinicians often fail to adopt their recommendations. This study examines the barriers and facilitators to the uptake of an evidence-based CDSS as perceived by diverse health professionals in hospitals at different stages of CDSS adoption. METHODS: Qualitative study conducted as part of a series of randomized controlled trials of CDSSs. The sample includes two hospitals using a CDSS and two hospitals that aim to adopt a CDSS in the future. We interviewed physicians, nurses, information technology staff, and members of the boards of directors (n = 30). We used a constant comparative approach to develop a framework for guiding implementation. RESULTS: We identified six clusters of experiences of, and attitudes towards CDSSs, which we label as "positions." The six positions represent a gradient of acquisition of control over CDSSs (from low to high) and are characterized by different types of barriers to CDSS uptake. The most severe barriers (prevalent in the first positions) include clinicians' perception that the CDSSs may reduce their professional autonomy or may be used against them in the event of medical-legal controversies. Moving towards the last positions, these barriers are substituted by technical and usability problems related to the technology interface. When all barriers are overcome, CDSSs are perceived as a working tool at the service of its users, integrating clinicians' reasoning and fostering organizational learning. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers and facilitators to the use of CDSSs are dynamic and may exist prior to their introduction in clinical contexts; providing a static list of obstacles and facilitators, irrespective of the specific implementation phase and context, may not be sufficient or useful to facilitate uptake. Factors such as clinicians' attitudes towards scientific evidences and guidelines, the quality of inter-disciplinary relationships, and an organizational ethos of transparency and accountability need to be considered when exploring the readiness of a hospital to adopt CDSSs.

Implementing an evidence-based computerized decision support system linked to electronic health records to improve care for cancer patients: the ONCO-CODES study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are computer programs that provide doctors with person-specific, actionable recommendations, or management options that are intelligently filtered or presented at appropriate times to enhance health care. CDSSs might be integrated with patient electronic health records (EHRs) and evidence-based knowledge. METHODS/DESIGN: The Computerized DEcision Support in ONCOlogy (ONCO-CODES) trial is a pragmatic, parallel group, randomized controlled study with 1:1 allocation ratio. The trial is designed to evaluate the effectiveness on clinical practice and quality of care of a multi-specialty collection of patient-specific reminders generated by a CDSS in the IRCCS Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) hospital. We hypothesize that the intervention can increase clinician adherence to guidelines and, eventually, improve the quality of care offered to cancer patients. The primary outcome is the rate at which the issues reported by the reminders are resolved, aggregating specialty and primary care reminders. We will include all the patients admitted to hospital services. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. DISCUSSION: The results of our study will contribute to the current understanding of the effectiveness of CDSSs in cancer hospitals, thereby informing healthcare policy about the potential role of CDSS use. Furthermore, the study will inform whether CDSS may facilitate the integration of primary care in cancer settings, known to be usually limited. The increasing use of and familiarity with advanced technology among new generations of physicians may support integrated approaches to be tested in pragmatic studies determining the optimal interface between primary and oncology care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02645357.

[The added value of information summaries supporting clinical decisions at the point-of-care.] / Il valore aggiunto di strumenti informativi point-of-care a supporto delle decisioni.

Evidence-based healthcare requires the integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise and patients' values. International publishers are developing evidence-based information services and resources designed to overcome the difficulties in retrieving, assessing and updating medical information as well as to facilitate a rapid access to valid clinical knowledge. Point-of-care information summaries are defined as web-based medical compendia that are specifically designed to deliver pre-digested, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, and periodically updated information to health care providers. Their validity must be assessed against marketing claims that they are evidence-based. We periodically evaluate the content development processes of several international point-of-care information summaries. The number of these products has increased along with their quality. The last analysis done in 2014 identified 26 products and found that three of them (Best Practice, Dynamed e Uptodate) scored the highest across all evaluated dimensions (volume, quality of the editorial process and evidence-based methodology). Point-of-care information summaries as stand-alone products or integrated with other systems, are gaining ground to support clinical decisions. The choice of one product over another depends both on the properties of the service and the preference of users. However, even the most innovative information system must rely on transparent and valid contents. Individuals and institutions should regularly assess the value of point-of-care summaries as their quality changes rapidly over time.

Implementing an evidence-based computerized decision support system to improve patient care in a general hospital: the CODES study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are information technology-based software that provide health professionals with actionable, patient-specific recommendations or guidelines for disease diagnosis, treatment, and management at the point-of-care. These messages are intelligently filtered to enhance the health and clinical care of patients. CDSSs may be integrated with patient electronic health records (EHRs) and evidence-based knowledge. METHODS/DESIGN: We designed a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of patient-specific, evidence-based reminders generated at the point-of-care by a multi-specialty decision support system on clinical practice and the quality of care. We will include all the patients admitted to the internal medicine department of one large general hospital. The primary outcome is the rate at which medical problems, which are detected by the decision support software and reported through the reminders, are resolved (i.e., resolution rates). Secondary outcomes are resolution rates for reminders specific to venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, in-hospital all causes and VTE-related mortality, and the length of hospital stay during the study period. DISCUSSION: The adoption of CDSSs is likely to increase across healthcare systems due to growing concerns about the quality of medical care and discrepancy between real and ideal practice, continuous demands for a meaningful use of health information technology, and the increasing use of and familiarity with advanced technology among new generations of physicians. The results of our study will contribute to the current understanding of the effectiveness of CDSSs in primary care and hospital settings, thereby informing future research and healthcare policy questions related to the feasibility and value of CDSS use in healthcare systems. This trial is seconded by a specialty trial randomizing patients in an oncology setting (ONCO-CODES). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02577198?term=NCT02577198&rank=1.

Providing Doctors With High-Quality Information: An Updated Evaluation of Web-Based Point-of-Care Information Summaries.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of modern practice requires health professionals to be active information-seekers. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to review the quality and progress of point-of-care information summaries-Web-based medical compendia that are specifically designed to deliver pre-digested, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, and periodically updated information to health care providers. We aimed to evaluate product claims of being evidence-based. METHODS: We updated our previous evaluations by searching Medline, Google, librarian association websites, and conference proceedings from August 2012 to December 2014. We included Web-based, regularly updated point-of-care information summaries with claims of being evidence-based. We extracted data on the general characteristics and content presentation of products, and we quantitatively assessed their breadth of disease coverage, editorial quality, and evidence-based methodology. We assessed potential relationships between these dimensions and compared them with our 2008 assessment. RESULTS: We screened 58 products; 26 met our inclusion criteria. Nearly a quarter (6/26, 23%) were newly identified in 2014. We accessed and analyzed 23 products for content presentation and quantitative dimensions. Most summaries were developed by major publishers in the United States and the United Kingdom; no products derived from low- and middle-income countries. The main target audience remained physicians, although nurses and physiotherapists were increasingly represented. Best Practice, Dynamed, and UptoDate scored the highest across all dimensions. The majority of products did not excel across all dimensions: we found only a moderate positive correlation between editorial quality and evidence-based methodology (r=.41, P=.0496). However, all dimensions improved from 2008: editorial quality (P=.01), evidence-based methodology (P=.015), and volume of diseases and medical conditions (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Medical and scientific publishers are investing substantial resources towards the development and maintenance of point-of-care summaries. The number of these products has increased since 2008 along with their quality. Best Practice, Dynamed, and UptoDate scored the highest across all dimensions, while others that were marketed as evidence-based were less reliable. Individuals and institutions should regularly assess the value of point-of-care summaries as their quality changes rapidly over time.

[Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of computerized decision support systems in Italian hospitals: a grounded theory study]. / Barriere e facilitatori all'implementazione dei sistemi di supporto decisionale computerizzati in ospedale: uno studio "grounded theory".

INTRODUCTION: Computerized Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) connect health care professionals with high-quality, evidence-based information at the point-of-care to guide clinical decision-making. Current research shows the potential of CDSSs to improve the efficiency and quality of patient care. The mere provision of the technology, however, does not guarantee its uptake. This qualitative study aims to explore the barriers and facilitators to the use of CDSSs as identified by health providers. METHODS: The study was performed in three Italian hospitals, each characterized by a different level of familiarity with the CDSS technology. We interviewed frontline physicians, nurses, information technology staff, and members of the hospital board of directors (n=24). A grounded theory approach informed our sampling criteria as well as the data collection and analysis. RESULTS: The adoption of CDSSs by health care professionals can be represented as a process that consists of six "positionings," each corresponding to an individual's use and perceived mastery of the technology. In conditions of low mastery, the CDSS is perceived as an object of threat, an unfamiliar tool that is difficult to control. On the other hand, individuals in conditions of high mastery view the CDSS as a helpful tool that can be locally adapted and integrated with clinicians' competences to fulfil their needs. In the first positionings, the uptake of CDSSs is hindered by representational obstacles. The last positionings, alternatively, featured technical obstacles to CDSS uptake. DISCUSSION: Our model of CDSS adoption can guide hospital administrators interested in the future integration of CDSSs to evaluate their organizational contexts, identify potential challenges to the implementation of the technology, and develop an effective strategy to address them. Our findings also allow reflections concerning the misalignment between most Italian hospitals and the current innovation trends toward the uptake of computerized decision support technologies.

Point of care information services: a platform for self-directed continuing medical education for front line decision makers.

The structure and aim of continuing medical education (CME) is shifting from the passive transmission of knowledge to a competency-based model focused on professional development. Self-directed learning is emerging as the foremost educational method for advancing competency-based CME. In a field marked by the constant expansion of knowledge, self-directed learning allows physicians to tailor their learning strategy to meet the information needs of practice. Point of care information services are innovative tools that provide health professionals with digested evidence at the front line to guide decision making. By mobilising self-directing learning to meet the information needs of clinicians at the bedside, point of care information services represent a promising platform for competency-based CME. Several points, however, must be considered to enhance the accessibility and development of these tools to improve competency-based CME and the quality of care.

Effectiveness of computerized decision support systems linked to electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) featuring rule- or algorithm-based software integrated with electronic health records (EHRs) and evidence-based knowledge. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. Information on system design, capabilities, acquisition, implementation context, and effects on mortality, morbidity, and economic outcomes were extracted. Twenty-eight RCTs were included. CDSS use did not affect mortality (16 trials, 37395 patients; 2282 deaths; risk ratio [RR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85, 1.08; I(2) = 41%). A statistically significant effect was evident in the prevention of morbidity, any disease (9 RCTs; 13868 patients; RR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.68, 0.99; I(2) = 64%), but selective outcome reporting or publication bias cannot be excluded. We observed differences for costs and health service utilization, although these were often small in magnitude. Across clinical settings, new generation CDSSs integrated with EHRs do not affect mortality and might moderately improve morbidity outcomes.

Systemic safety of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of legal blindness in elderly populations of industrialised countries. Bevacizumab (Avastin®) and ranibizumab (Lucentis®) are targeted biological drugs (a monoclonal antibody) that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor, an angiogenic cytokine that promotes vascular leakage and growth, thereby preventing its pathological angiogenesis. Ranibizumab is approved for intravitreal use to treat neovascular AMD, while bevacizumab is approved for intravenous use as a cancer therapy. However, due to the biological similarity of the two drugs, bevacizumab is widely used off-label to treat neovascular AMD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the systemic safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (brand name Avastin®; Genentech/Roche) compared with intravitreal ranibizumab (brand name Lucentis®; Novartis/Genentech) in people with neovascular AMD. Primary outcomes were death and All serious systemic adverse events (All SSAEs), the latter as a composite outcome in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice. Secondary outcomes examined specific SSAEs: fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarctions, strokes, arteriothrombotic events, serious infections, and events grouped in some Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Classes (MedDRA SOC). We assessed the safety at the longest available follow-up to a maximum of two years. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and other online databases up to 27 March 2014. We also searched abstracts and clinical study presentations at meetings, trial registries, and contacted authors of included studies when we had questions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg) and ranibizumab (0.5 mg) in people with neovascular AMD, regardless of publication status, drug dose, treatment regimen, or follow-up length, and whether the SSAEs of interest were reported in the trial report. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies and assessed the risk of bias for each study. Three authors independently extracted data.We conducted random-effects meta-analyses for the primary and secondary outcomes. We planned a pre-specified analysis to explore deaths and All SSAEs at the one-year follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included data from nine studies (3665 participants), including six published (2745 participants) and three unpublished (920 participants) RCTs, none supported by industry. Three studies excluded participants at high cardiovascular risk, increasing clinical heterogeneity among studies. The studies were well designed, and we did not downgrade the quality of the evidence for any of the outcomes due to risk of bias. Although the estimated effects of bevacizumab and ranibizumab on our outcomes were similar, we downgraded the quality of the evidence due to imprecision.At the maximum follow-up (one or two years), the estimated risk ratio (RR) of death with bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab was 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.57, P value = 0.59; eight studies, 3338 participants; moderate quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of death with ranibizumab of 3.4% and with bevacizumab of 3.7% (95% CI 2.7% to 5.3%).For All SSAEs, the estimated RR was 1.08 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.31, P value = 0.41; nine studies, 3665 participants; low quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of SSAEs of 22.2% with ranibizumab and with bevacizumab of 24% (95% CI 20% to 29.1%).For the secondary outcomes, we could not detect any difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders MedDRA SOC where there was a higher risk with bevacizumab (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.04 to 3.19, P value = 0.04; six studies, 3190 participants).Pre-specified analyses of deaths and All SSAEs at one-year follow-up did not substantially alter the findings of our review.Fixed-effect analysis for deaths did not substantially alter the findings of our review, but fixed-effect analysis of All SSAEs showed an increased risk for bevacizumab (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.26, P value = 0.04; nine studies, 3665 participants): the meta-analysis was dominated by a single study (weight = 46.9%).The available evidence was sensitive to the exclusion of CATT or unpublished results. For All SSAEs, the exclusion of CATT moved the overall estimate towards no difference (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.25, P value = 0.92), while the exclusion of LUCAS yielded a larger RR, with more SSAEs in the bevacizumab group, largely driven by CATT (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34, P value = 0.004). The exclusion of all unpublished studies produced a RR of 1.12 for death (95% CI 0.78 to 1.62, P value = 0.53) and a RR of 1.21 for SSAEs (95% CI 1.06 to 1.37, P value = 0.004), indicating a higher risk of SSAEs in those assigned to bevacizumab than ranibizumab. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of non-industry sponsored RCTs could not determine a difference between intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab for deaths, All SSAEs, or specific subsets of SSAEs in the first two years of treatment, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders. The current evidence is imprecise and might vary across levels of patient risks, but overall suggests that if a difference exists, it is likely to be small. Health policies for the utilisation of ranibizumab instead of bevacizumab as a routine intervention for neovascular AMD for reasons of systemic safety are not sustained by evidence. The main results and quality of evidence should be verified once all trials are fully published.

Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of computerized clinical decision support systems in specialty hospitals: protocol for a qualitative cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have been shown to improve the efficiency and quality of patient care by connecting healthcare professionals with high quality, evidence-based information at the point-of-care. The mere provision of CDSSs, however, does not guarantee their uptake. Rather, individual and institutional perceptions can foster or inhibit the integration of CDSSs into routine clinical workflow. Current studies exploring health professionals' perceptions of CDSSs focus primarily on technical and usability issues, overlooking the social or cultural variables as well as broader administrative or organizational roles that may influence CDSS adoption. Moreover, there is a lack of data on the evolution of perceived barriers or facilitators to CDSS uptake across different stages of implementation. METHODS: We will conduct a qualitative, cross-sectional study in three Italian specialty hospitals involving frontline physicians, nurses, information technology staff, and members of the hospital board of directors. We will use semi-structured interviews following the Grounded Theory framework, progressively recruiting participants until no new information is gained from the interviews. DISCUSSION: CDSSs are likely to become an integral and diffuse part of clinical practice. Various factors must be considered when planning their introduction in healthcare settings. The findings of this study will guide the development of strategies to facilitate the successful integration of CDSSs into the regular clinical workflow. The evaluation of diverse health professionals across multiple hospital settings in different stages of CDSS uptake will better capture the complexity of roles and contextual factors affecting CDSS uptake.