Decisions about lumping vs. splitting of the scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions are not well justified: a case study in systematic reviews of health care professional reminders.

OBJECTIVES Lumping and splitting refer to the scope of a systematic review question, where lumped reviews are broad and split are narrow. The objective was to determine the frequency of lumping and splitting in systematic reviews of reminder interventions, assess how review authors justified their decisions about the scope of their reviews, and explore how review authors cited other systematic reviews in the field. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A descriptive approach involving a content analysis and citation bibliometric study of an overview of 31 systematic reviews of reminder interventions. RESULTS Twenty-four of 31 reminder reviews were split, most frequently across one category (population, intervention, study design, outcome). Review authors poorly justified their decisions about the scope of their reviews and tended not to cite other similar reviews. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that for systematic reviews of reminder interventions, splitting is more common than lumping, with most reviews split by condition or targeted behavior. Review authors poorly justify the need for their review and do not cite relevant literature to put their reviews in the context of the available evidence. These factors may have contributed to a proliferation of systematic reviews of reminders and an overall disorganization of the literature.

[1]  Patrice Degoulet,et al.  Decision aids for triage of patients with chest pain: a systematic review of field evaluation studies. , 1999, Proceedings. AMIA Symposium.

[2]  Luke Vale,et al.  Toward evidence-based quality improvement. Evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966-1998. , 2006, Journal of general internal medicine.

[3]  E. Balas,et al.  Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  R. Haynes,et al.  Computer-aided quality assurance. A critical appraisal. , 1987, Archives of internal medicine.

[5]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[6]  L. Trinquart,et al.  Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[7]  D. Bates,et al.  Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. , 2003, Archives of internal medicine.

[8]  Patrice Degoulet,et al.  Determinants of Success for Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems Integrated into CPOE Systems: a Systematic Review , 2006, AMIA.

[9]  Luke Vale,et al.  Toward evidence-based quality improvement , 2006 .

[10]  K. Thursky,et al.  Use of computerized decision support systems to improve antibiotic prescribing , 2006, Expert review of anti-infective therapy.

[11]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  P. Glasziou,et al.  Computerised reminders and feedback in medication management: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials , 2003, The Medical journal of Australia.

[13]  A D Oxman,et al.  Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.

[14]  Joyce A. Mitchell,et al.  The clinical value of computerized information services. A review of 98 randomized clinical trials. , 1996, Archives of family medicine.

[15]  Mack T Ruffin,et al.  Information Technology and Cancer Prevention , 2006, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[16]  P. Gøtzsche,et al.  Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  N. Freemantle,et al.  Computerised advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice. , 2001, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[18]  R. Haynes,et al.  Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. , 1998, JAMA.

[19]  David Blumenthal,et al.  Improving Preventive Care by Prompting Physicians , 2001 .

[20]  Nicolette de Keizer,et al.  Review Paper: Evaluation of Outpatient Computerized Physician Medication Order Entry Systems: A Systematic Review , 2007, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[21]  Dominik Aronsky,et al.  Review Paper: Biomedical Informatics Applications for Asthma Care: A Systematic Review , 2006, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[22]  V. Sintchenko,et al.  Are we measuring the right end-points? Variables that affect the impact of computerised decision support on patient outcomes: A systematic review , 2007, Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine.

[23]  A. Jerant,et al.  Does the use of electronic medical records improve surrogate patient outcomes in outpatient settings? , 2000, Journal of Family Practice.

[24]  K Dave,et al.  A CRITICAL APPRAISAL , 2002 .

[25]  F. Sullivan,et al.  A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-97 , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[26]  T. Fahey,et al.  A systematic review of the use of computers in the management of hypertension. , 1998, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[27]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[28]  J. Knottnerus,et al.  Influencing diagnostic and preventive performance in ambulatory care by feedback and reminders. A review. , 1993, Family practice.

[29]  R. Haynes,et al.  Effects of Computer-based Clinical Decision Support Systems on Clinician Performance and Patient Outcome: A Critical Appraisal of Research , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[30]  JUDITH W. DEXHEIMER,et al.  Review Paper: Prompting Clinicians about Preventive Care Measures: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials , 2008, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[31]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement , 2009, BMJ.

[32]  Richard N. Shiffman,et al.  Review: Computer-based Guideline Implementation Systems: A Systematic Review of Functionality and Effectiveness , 1999, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[33]  Joyce A. Mitchell,et al.  Effect of physician reminders on preventive care: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. , 1994, Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care.

[34]  Margaret Williamson,et al.  The impact of computerised physician order entry systems on pathology services: A systematic review , 2007, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[35]  William DuMouchel,et al.  A meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. , 1996, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[36]  Patrice Degoulet,et al.  An overview of the effect of computer-assisted management of anticoagulant therapy on the quality of anticoagulation , 1998, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[37]  Fitzmaurice,et al.  Review of computerized decision support systems for oral anticoagulation management , 1998, British journal of haematology.

[38]  H. Mcdonald,et al.  Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. , 2005, JAMA.

[39]  Rebecca Randell,et al.  Effects of computerized decision support systems on nursing performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review , 2007, Journal of health services research & policy.

[40]  Frank Sullivan,et al.  Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports , 1995, BMJ.