Two reviewers (S-AP, IH) rated experimental and quasi-experimental studies for methodological quality to identify potential

sources of bias (study design, unit of randomisation, differences in baseline characteristics, objectivity of outcome measures, and completeness of follow-up; see Figure 1). We also noted whether statistical analyses were adjusted for clustering and whether the authors Venetoclax had mentioned possible contamination of the study groups. Due to heterogeneity in study methodology, comparison groups, setting, intervention targets and outcomes, we did not use traditional meta-analytic approaches to combine individual study results. Inconsistent reporting of means and standard deviations (SD) meant we could not calculate effect size measures such as Cohen’s d. We describe the impact of interventions on prescribing measures and clinical and patient outcomes as reported in the individual studies. Given the role of the pharmacist as an intermediary in medication management we also noted the frequency and nature of interactions between pharmacists and physicians and/or patients and the impact of CDSS on pharmacist workload and work patterns. Outcomes are summarised separately for each study and coded according to the following scheme: + (NS) means selleck that the intervention favoured CDSS (the outcome was

more consistent with the intentions of the CDSS) but was not statistically significant; – (NS) means that

the intervention favoured the comparison group (the outcome of comparison groups was more consistent with the intentions of the CDSS) but was not significant; ++ means that the intervention favoured CDSS (the outcome was more consistent with the intentions of the CDSS) and was statistically significant; −− means that the intervention favoured the comparison group (the outcome of comparison groups was more consistent with the intentions of the CDSS) and was statistically significant; finally, 0 means that there was no difference between groups. We aggregated outcome data by reporting whether studies demonstrated at least one positive outcome (general trend in favour of CDSS for a prescribing, clinical or patient outcome) and statistically significant improvements in favour Decitabine in vivo of CDSS on the majority (≥ 50%) of outcomes (as used by Garg and colleagues[4]). We chose to report trends as well as significant results given the likelihood that some studies were underpowered to detect statistically significant differences in outcomes. We examined differences in the proportions of studies showing significant improvements on the majority of outcomes for our main research questions (i.e. differences between safety studies versus QUM studies, ambulatory versus institutional care, system- versus user-initiated studies, prescribing versus clinical outcomes) using Fisher’s exact test. All analyses were performed using StatsDirect (version 2.6.3).