The Updated Systematic Review reviews the January 2010 to August 2013 health IT literature to examine the effects of health IT across three aspects of care: efficiency, quality, and safety. This report updates previous systematic reviews of the health IT literature, focusing specifically on identifying and summarizing the evidence related to the use of health IT as outlined in the Meaningful Use regulations. The review examined the literature to determine the article authors' findings related to the effects or associations of a meaningful use functionality on an aspect of care. Each article's findings was scored as positive (defined as: health IT improved key aspect of care but none worse off), mixed-positive (defined as: positive effects of health IT outweight negative effects), neutral (defined as: health IT not associated with change in outcome), or negative (defined as: negative effects of health IT on outcome). The full review data: article, related meaningful use functionality, aspect of care, and author sentiment are provided in this dataset.
*This data is API accessible. See /api for documentation and guidance on how to use the API.
|Data Field||Data Description||Additional Information|
|author||Author // The author or authors of the reviewed health IT article|
|article_title||Article Title // The title of the reviewed health IT article|
|publication_year||Year of Publication // The publication year of the reviewed health IT article||2010/2011/2012/2013|
|meaningful_use_functionality||Meaningful Use Functionality // The meaningful use functionality studied, tested, and/or research in the reviewed health IT article||barcode medication administration, clinical decision support (CDS), Clinical lab test results, computerized provider order entry (CPOE), electronic immunization registries, e-Prescribing (eRx), health information exchange, medication lists, multifaceted health IT intervention, patient access to electronic records, patient care reminders, patient lists by condition, patient specific education, problem lists, summary of care records|
|aspect_of_care||Aspect of Care // The aspect of care that the meaningul use functionality was studied, tested, and/or research against in the reviewed health IT article||efficiency/quality/safety; in particular: cost-efficiency, time-efficiency, efficiency of utilization, quality of outcomes, quality of the process, quality-satisfaction, and safety|
|author_sentiment||Author Sentiment // The author or authors' findings and/or conclusions regarding the results of the study, test, and/or research of the meaningful use functionality's effect on the aspect of care||positive (defined as: health IT improved key aspect of care but none worse off)/ mixed-positive (defined as: positive effects of health IT outweight negative effects)/ neutral (defined as: health IT not associated with change in outcome)/ negative (defined as: negative effects of health IT on outcome)|
The systematic review was carried out in three stages by two health IT subject matter experts, with input from a panel of five nationally-known health IT experts. The reviewers used a web-based system to conduct the screening process. The first stage involved independent, dual-rater screening of articles based on their titles against a set of defined on the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The next stage involved screening each article at the abstract level using a standardized abstraction form. The final stage of the screening process involved a full text review and classification using a standardized abstraction form. Inclusion/exclusion or classification discrepancies between the two reviewers were resolved by consensus. The reviewers conducted multiple update searches using the same search terms through October 2013 using a computer-aided screening system that extends a previously described approach for facilitating systematic review updating.