What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to systematically review and meta-analyze the performance of Epic's clinical decision support tools in real-world settings.

April 3, 2026Journal of General Internal Medicine2 citationsOpen Access

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Externally Validated Epic Clinical Decision Support Tools

HPHardik PatelNorthwell Health SCSalvatore CruscoNorthwell Health DHDerek HansenNorthwell Health

Key Points

This research aims to systematically review and meta-analyze the performance of Epic's clinical decision support tools in real-world settings.
Conducted a systematic review of existing studies on Epic's clinical decision support tools.
Performed a meta-analysis to assess the overall performance and heterogeneity of the tools.
Evaluated performance metrics such as AUROC across different models and sites.
No tool exceeded a performance threshold of AUROC 0.79.
Three models (ESM, EURM, EEOL-CI) performed below expected standards.
High heterogeneity across different sites underscored the necessity for local validation.

Abstract

Epic's CDS tools demonstrated modest real-world performance, with none exceeding AUROC 0.79. Three models (ESM, EURM, EEOL-CI) underperformed Epic's reported ranges. High heterogeneity across sites emphasizes the need for local validation before clinical deployment.

Perguntar à IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Patel et al. (Tue,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69cf5fe05a333a821460ea29 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10381-y

Perguntar à IA

Bookmark

View Full Paper