4.6 Article

Association between e-alert implementation for detection of acute kidney injury and outcomes: a systematic review

Journal

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 265-272

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfw424

Keywords

acute kidney injury; clinical decision support; electronic alert; meta-analysis; systematic review

Funding

  1. Canada Research Chair in Critical Care Nephrology [NIK K23 DK097201]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Electronic alerts (e-alerts) for acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalized patients are increasingly being implemented; however, their impact on outcomes remains uncertain. Methods. We performed a systematic review. Electronic databases and grey literature were searched for original studies published between 1990 and 2016. Randomized, quasi-randomized, observational and before-and-after studies that included hospitalized patients, implemented e-alerts for AKI and described their impact on one of care processes, patient-centred outcomes or resource utilization measures were included. Results. Our search yielded six studies (n = 10 165 patients). E-alerts were generally automated, triggered through electronic health records and not linked to clinical decision support. In pooled analysis, e-alerts did not improve mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.05; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.84-1.31; n = 3 studies; n = 3425 patients; I-2 = 0%] or reduce renal replacement therapy (RRT) use (OR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.91-1.57; n = 2 studies; n = 3236 patients; I-2 = 0%). Isolated studies reported improvements in selected care processes. Pooled analysis found no significant differences in prescribed fluid therapy. Conclusions. In the available studies, e-alerts for AKI do not improve survival or reduce RRT utilization. The impact of e-alerts on processes of care was variable. Additional research is needed to understand those aspects of e-alerts that are most likely to improve care processes and outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available