Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases. OBJECTIVES: The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking. SEARCH METHODS: For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I2 = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I2 = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting them to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system (computer-generated) and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on quality of care (outcomes related to healthcare professionals' practice) and patient outcomes (outcomes related to patients' health condition). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers up to 21 September 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual- or cluster-randomized and non-randomized trials that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone (single-component intervention) or in addition to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention), compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median improvement and interquartile range (IQR) across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 35 studies (30 randomized trials and five non-randomized trials) and analyzed 34 studies (40 comparisons). Twenty-nine studies took place in the USA and six studies took place in Canada, France, Israel, and Kenya. All studies except two took place in outpatient care. Reminders were aimed at enhancing compliance with preventive guidelines (e.g. cancer screening tests, vaccination) in half the studies and at enhancing compliance with disease management guidelines for acute or chronic conditions (e.g. annual follow-ups, laboratory tests, medication adjustment, counseling) in the other half.Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), probably improves quality of care slightly compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 6.8% (IQR: 3.8% to 17.5%); 34 studies (40 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals alone (single-component intervention) probably improves quality of care compared with usual care (median improvement 11.0% (IQR 5.4% to 20.0%); 27 studies (27 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence). Adding computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention) probably improves quality of care slightly compared with the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 4.0% (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%); 11 studies (13 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).We are uncertain whether reminders, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), improve patient outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (n = 6 studies (seven comparisons)). None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals probably slightly improves quality of care, in terms of compliance with preventive guidelines and compliance with disease management guidelines. It is uncertain whether reminders improve patient outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can probably improve quality of care in various settings under various conditions.

Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining therapeutic concentrations of drugs with a narrow therapeutic window is a complex task. Several computer systems have been designed to help doctors determine optimum drug dosage. Significant improvements in health care could be achieved if computer advice improved health outcomes and could be implemented in routine practice in a cost-effective fashion. This is an updated version of an earlier Cochrane systematic review, first published in 2001 and updated in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether computerized advice on drug dosage has beneficial effects on patient outcomes compared with routine care (empiric dosing without computer assistance). SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched from 1996 to January 2012: EPOC Group Specialized Register, Reference Manager; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Ovid; EMBASE, Ovid; and CINAHL, EbscoHost. A "top up" search was conducted for the period January 2012 to January 2013; these results were screened by the authors and potentially relevant studies are listed in Studies Awaiting Classification. The review authors also searched reference lists of relevant studies and related reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses of computerized advice on drug dosage. The participants were healthcare professionals responsible for patient care. The outcomes were any objectively measured change in the health of patients resulting from computerized advice (such as therapeutic drug control, clinical improvement, adverse reactions). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We grouped the results from the included studies by drug used and the effect aimed at for aminoglycoside antibiotics, amitriptyline, anaesthetics, insulin, anticoagulants, ovarian stimulation, anti-rejection drugs and theophylline. We combined the effect sizes to give an overall effect for each subgroup of studies, using a random-effects model. We further grouped studies by type of outcome when appropriate (i.e. no evidence of heterogeneity). MAIN RESULTS: Forty-six comparisons (from 42 trials) were included (as compared with 26 comparisons in the last update) including a wide range of drugs in inpatient and outpatient settings. All were randomized controlled trials except two studies. Interventions usually targeted doctors, although some studies attempted to influence prescriptions by pharmacists and nurses. Drugs evaluated were anticoagulants, insulin, aminoglycoside antibiotics, theophylline, anti-rejection drugs, anaesthetic agents, antidepressants and gonadotropins. Although all studies used reliable outcome measures, their quality was generally low.This update found similar results to the previous update and managed to identify specific therapeutic areas where the computerized advice on drug dosage was beneficial compared with routine care:1. it increased target peak serum concentrations (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.13) and the proportion of people with plasma drug concentrations within the therapeutic range after two days (pooled risk ratio (RR) 4.44, 95% CI 1.94 to 10.13) for aminoglycoside antibiotics;2. it led to a physiological parameter more often within the desired range for oral anticoagulants (SMD for percentage of time spent in target international normalized ratio +0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.33) and insulin (SMD for percentage of time in target glucose range: +1.27, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.98);3. it decreased the time to achieve stabilization for oral anticoagulants (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.04);4. it decreased the thromboembolism events (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94) and tended to decrease bleeding events for anticoagulants although the difference was not significant (rate ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.08). It tended to decrease unwanted effects for aminoglycoside antibiotics (nephrotoxicity: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06) and anti-rejection drugs (cytomegalovirus infections: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.40);5. it tended to reduce the length of time spent in the hospital although the difference was not significant (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.02) and to achieve comparable or better cost-effectiveness ratios than usual care;6. there was no evidence of differences in mortality or other clinical adverse events for insulin (hypoglycaemia), anaesthetic agents, anti-rejection drugs and antidepressants.For all outcomes, statistical heterogeneity quantified by I(2) statistics was moderate to high. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review update suggests that computerized advice for drug dosage has some benefits: it increases the serum concentrations for aminoglycoside antibiotics and improves the proportion of people for which the plasma drug is within the therapeutic range for aminoglycoside antibiotics.It leads to a physiological parameter more often within the desired range for oral anticoagulants and insulin. It decreases the time to achieve stabilization for oral anticoagulants. It tends to decrease unwanted effects for aminoglycoside antibiotics and anti-rejection drugs, and it significantly decreases thromboembolism events for anticoagulants. It tends to reduce the length of hospital stay compared with routine care while comparable or better cost-effectiveness ratios were achieved.However, there was no evidence that decision support had an effect on mortality or other clinical adverse events for insulin (hypoglycaemia), anaesthetic agents, anti-rejection drugs and antidepressants. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that some decision support technical features (such as its integration into a computer physician order entry system) or aspects of organization of care (such as the setting) could optimize the effect of computerized advice.Taking into account the high risk of bias of, and high heterogeneity between, studies, these results must be interpreted with caution.

Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals; effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting the doctor to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on processes of care (related to healthcare professionals' practice) and outcomes of care (related to patients' health condition). SEARCH METHODS: For this update the EPOC Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the following databases between June 11-19, 2012: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Library (Economics, Methods, and Health Technology Assessment sections), Issue 6, 2012; MEDLINE, OVID (1946- ), Daily Update, and In-process; EMBASE, Ovid (1947- ); CINAHL, EbscoHost (1980- ); EPOC Specialised Register, Reference Manager, and INSPEC, Engineering Village. The authors reviewed reference lists of related reviews and studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual or cluster-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on processes and/or outcomes of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. We contacted authors to obtain important missing information for studies that were published within the last 10 years. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median absolute improvement and interquartile range (IQR) in process adherence across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. MAIN RESULTS: In the 32 included studies, computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals achieved moderate improvement in professional practices, with a median improvement of processes of care of 7.0% (IQR: 3.9% to 16.4%). Implementing reminders alone improved care by 11.2% (IQR 6.5% to 19.6%) compared with usual care, while implementing reminders in addition to another intervention improved care by 4.0% only (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%) compared with the other intervention. The quality of evidence for these comparisons was rated as moderate according to the GRADE approach. Two reminder features were associated with larger effect sizes: providing space on the reminder for provider to enter a response (median 13.7% versus 4.3% for no response, P value = 0.01) and providing an explanation of the content or advice on the reminder (median 12.0% versus 4.2% for no explanation, P value = 0.02). Median improvement in processes of care also differed according to the behaviour the reminder targeted: for instance, reminders to vaccinate improved processes of care by 13.1% (IQR 12.2% to 20.7%) compared with other targeted behaviours. In the only study that had sufficient power to detect a clinically significant effect on outcomes of care, reminders were not associated with significant improvements. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals achieve moderate improvement in process of care. Two characteristics emerged as significant predictors of improvement: providing space on the reminder for a response from the clinician and providing an explanation of the reminder's content or advice. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can improve care in various settings under various conditions.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH METHODS: For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in July 2012 for studies added since the last update in 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that carbon monoxide (CO) measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other 11 trials due to the presence of substantial clinical heterogeneity. Of the remaining 11 trials, two trials detected statistically significant benefits: one trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62) and one trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers and was judged to be at unclear risk of bias in two domains. Nine further trials did not detect significant effects. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO combined with genetic susceptibility as two different interventions; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. One trial used CO measurement, one used ultrasonography of carotid arteries and two tested for genetic markers. The four remaining trials used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Fluoride supplements (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gums) for preventing dental caries in children.

BACKGROUND: Dietary fluoride supplements were first introduced to provide systemic fluoride in areas where water fluoridation is not available. Since 1990, the use of fluoride supplements in caries prevention has been re-evaluated in several countries. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of fluoride supplements for preventing dental caries in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 12 October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 12 October 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 12 October 2011), WHOLIS/PAHO/MEDCARIB/LILACS/BBO via BIREME (1982 to 12 October 2011), and Current Controlled Trials (to 12 October 2011). We handsearched reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing, with minimum follow-up of 2 years, fluoride supplements (tablets, drops, lozenges) with no fluoride supplement or with other preventive measures such as topical fluorides in children less than 16 years of age at the start. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces (DMFS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors, independently and in duplicate, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, and carried out risk of bias assessment and data extraction. In the event of disagreement, we sought consensus and consulted a third review author. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used the prevented fraction (PF) as a metric for evaluating the efficacy of the intervention. The PF is defined as the mean caries increment in controls minus mean caries increment in the treated group divided by mean caries increment in controls. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses when data could be pooled. We assessed heterogeneity in the results of the studies by examining forest plots and by using formal tests for homogeneity. We recorded adverse effects (fluorosis) when the studies provided relevant data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 studies in the review involving 7196 children.In permanent teeth, when fluoride supplements were compared with no fluoride supplement (three studies), the use of fluoride supplements was associated with a 24% (95% confidence interval (CI) 16 to 33%) reduction in decayed, missing and filled surfaces (D(M)FS). The effect of fluoride supplements was unclear on deciduous or primary teeth. In one study, no caries-inhibiting effect was observed on deciduous teeth while in another study, the use of fluoride supplements was associated with a substantial reduction in caries increment.When fluoride supplements were compared with topical fluorides or with other preventive measures, there was no differential effect on permanent or deciduous teeth.The review found limited information on the adverse effects associated with the use of fluoride supplements. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that the use of fluoride supplements is associated with a reduction in caries increment when compared with no fluoride supplement in permanent teeth. The effect of fluoride supplements was unclear on deciduous teeth. When compared with the administration of topical fluorides, no differential effect was observed. We rated 10 trials as being at unclear risk of bias and one at high risk of bias, and therefore the trials provide weak evidence about the efficacy of fluoride supplements.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2008 Issue 4, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009), and EMBASE (1980 to January 2009). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method. MAIN RESULTS: We included eleven trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that CO measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other seven trials. One trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12; 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62). One trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77; 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers. Five trials failed to detect evidence of a significant effect. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO + genetic susceptibility as two different intervention; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. Three others used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings, and one tested for a genetic marker. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analysis.

Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining therapeutic concentrations of drugs with a narrow therapeutic window is a complex task. Several computer systems have been designed to help doctors determine optimum drug dosage. Significant improvements in health care could be achieved if computer advice improved health outcomes and could be implemented in routine practice in a cost effective fashion. This is an updated version of an earlier Cochrane systematic review, by Walton et al, published in 2001. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether computerised advice on drug dosage has beneficial effects on the process or outcome of health care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialized register (June 1996 to December 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006), EMBASE (1980 to December 2006), hand searched the journal Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (1979 to March 2007) and the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (1996 to March 2007) as well as reference lists from primary articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of computerized advice on drug dosage were included. The participants were health professionals responsible for patient care. The outcomes were: any objectively measured change in the behaviour of the health care provider (such as changes in the dose of drug used); any change in the health of patients resulting from computerized advice (such as adverse reactions to drugs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six comparisons (23 articles) were included (as compared to fifteen comparisons in the original review) including a wide range of drugs in inpatient and outpatient settings. Interventions usually targeted doctors although some studies attempted to influence prescriptions by pharmacists and nurses. Although all studies used reliable outcome measures, their quality was generally low. Computerized advice for drug dosage gave significant benefits by:1.increasing the initial dose (standardised mean difference 1.12, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.92)2.increasing serum concentrations (standradised mean difference 1.12, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82)3.reducing the time to therapeutic stabilisation (standardised mean difference -0.55, 95%CI -1.03 to -0.08)4.reducing the risk of toxic drug level (rate ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.70)5.reducing the length of hospital stay (standardised mean difference -0.35, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.17). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that computerized advice for drug dosage has some benefits: it increased the initial dose of drug, increased serum drug concentrations and led to a more rapid therapeutic control. It also reduced the risk of toxic drug levels and the length of time spent in the hospital. However, it had no effect on adverse reactions. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that some decision support technical features (such as its integration into a computer physician order entry system) or aspects of organization of care (such as the setting) could optimise the effect of computerised advice.