1  death cohort, 19.5% displayed a significant clinical alert.

2  interrogation by an electrophysiologist for clinical alerts.

3 nical alert) to 1996 (2 years after the ACAS clinical alert), adjusted for age and sex.

4 ors surveyed, although 91% were aware of the Clinical Alert and 76% felt the findings were valid, >50

5  Adjusting for clinical factors and the BARI Clinical Alert did not alter this variability.

6  felt the findings were valid, >50% felt the Clinical Alert had limited or no impact on their persona

7 e, randomized, clinical trial and subsequent Clinical Alert had no measurable impact on this practice

8           Over the 4 years of the study, the Clinical Alert had no significant impact on the proporti

9 he influence of the BARI findings and of the Clinical Alert on practice patterns is unknown.

10 ot change substantially after release of the clinical alerts or after journal publication.

11 ization (28.6% before versus 26.8% after the Clinical Alert; P=0.06).

12 tomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET clinical alert released February 1991) and the Asymptoma

13 ptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS clinical alert released September 1994).

14                                  Significant clinical alerts (sustained tachyarrhythmias or an elevat

15                              Afterthe NASCET clinical alert, the adjusted CEA rate increased 3.4% per

16                               After the ACAS clinical alert, the CEA rate increased 7.3 % per month (

17                               After the ACAS clinical alert, the CEA rate increased more in patients

18 onal Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) "Clinical Alert." The influence of the BARI findings and

19 h month from 1989 (2 years before the NASCET clinical alert) to 1996 (2 years after the ACAS clinical

20 After a 1999 National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical alert was issued, chemoradiotherapy has become

21 tion dissemination of CEA trial results with clinical alerts was associated with prompt and substanti