Table 4

Semiquantitative visual assessment of study results

AuthorsMortalityReadmissionAdverse events/near missesTimelinessAccuracyQuality/completenessPhysician satisfactionPatient satisfaction/knowledge
Afilalo et al6;
Lang et al7
NRNR+NR++NR/NR
García-Aymerich et al17NRNRNRNRNRNRNR/+
Casas et al16+NRNRNRNRNRNR/NR
Gray et al18NRNRNRNRNRNRNR+/NR
van Walraven et al20NRNRNR+NR+NR/NR
Kirby et al12NRNRNR+NRNRNRNR/NR
Branger et al15NRNRNR++NR+NR/NR
Callen et al8 9NRNRNRNRNR/+*NRNR/NR
O'Leary et al14NRNR++NR++NR/NR
Maslove et al13NRNR+/+
Graumlich et al10 11NR++/+
  • * The Callen et al study focuses on completeness of information. Electronic summaries were poorer on some items, but better on other items.

  • The O'Leary et al study revealed improved completeness in some, but not all of the domains that were assessed. Similarly, the studies from Graumlich et al reported favourable outcomes on some but not all domains assessed.

  • +, Significantly improvement(s) in the intervention group; –, significantly poorer in the intervention group; ↔, no significant difference between groups; NR, not reported.