The Reliability of an Epilepsy Treatment Clinical Decision Support System
We developed a content validated computerized epilepsy treatment clinical decision support system to assist clinicians with selecting the best antiepilepsy treatments. Before disseminating our computerized epilepsy treatment clinical decision support system, further rigorous validation testing was necessary. As reliability is a precondition of validity, we verified proof of reliability first. We evaluated the consistency of the epilepsy treatment clinical decision support system in three areas including the preferred antiepilepsy drug choice, the top three recommended choices, and the rank order of the three choices. We demonstrated 100 % reliability on 15,000 executions involving a three-step process on five different common pediatric epilepsy syndromes. Evidence for the reliability of the epilepsy treatment clinical decision support system was essential for the long-term viability of the system, and served as a crucial component for the next phase of system validation.
KeywordsReliability Decision support Epilepsy Pediatric
- 1.Hauser, W. A., and Hesdorffer, D. C., Epilepsy: Frequency, causes and consequences. Demos, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
- 2.Linehan, C., and Berg, A., Epidemiologic aspects of epilepsy. In: Wyllie, E., Cascino, G. D., Gidal, B. E., and Goodkin, H. P. (Eds.), Wyllie’s Treatment of Epilepsy: Principles and Practice, 5th edition. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp. 2–10, 2011.Google Scholar
- 4.Smith, R., Filling the lucana between research and practice: an interview with Michael Peckham. Brit Med J 307:1403–1407, 1992.Google Scholar
- 7.Roundtable on evidence-based medicine, Institute of Medicine. Olsen L, Aisner D, McGinnis JM, The learning healthcare system: workshop summary, p 5. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007.Google Scholar
- 9.Austin, S. M., Balas, E. A., Mitchell, J. A., and Ewigman, B. G., Effect of physician reminders on preventive care: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care, In, pp. 121–124, 1994.Google Scholar
- 11.Garg, A. X., Adhikari, N. K., McDonald, H., Rosas-Arellano, M. P., Devereaux, P. J., Beyene, J., Sam, J., and Haynes, R. B., Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes a systematic review. JAMA 293:1223–1238, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Committee on Quality of Healthcare in America, Institute of Medicine. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (eds.) (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system, pp 57–62. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 14.Berner, E. S., Clinical decision support systems: State of the Art, In the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville, Maryland, 2009.Google Scholar
- 15.Pestian, J., Spencer, M., Matykiewicz, P., Zhang, K., Vinks, A. A., and Glauser, T., Personalizing drug selection using advanced clinical decision support. Biomed Inform Insights 23:19–29, 2009.Google Scholar
- 16.Drug-Drug Interaction Database (Medispan). Philadelphia, PA, Wolters Kluwer Health. 2005. http://www.medispan.com/drug-information-bridge/. Accessed February 2008.
- 18.Arzimanoglou, A., Guerrini, R., and Aicardi, J., Aicardi’s Epilepsy in Children. Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2004.Google Scholar
- 20.Selenium – Web Browser Automation: [computer program]. Version 2.38. http://www.seleniumhq.org/;
- 26.Roller C (2010) Abundance of choice and its effect on decision making. http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2010/12/abundance-of-choice-and-its-effect-on-decision-making.php. Accessed 28 December 2013