Is audit running out of steam?

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Quality to the fore in health policy--at last. But the NHS mustn't encourage quality improvement with punitive approaches.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998
   Article
2. Outcome measures for routine use in dementia services: some practical considerations.Quality in health care : QHC · 1997
   Article
3. Audit in the therapy professions: some constraints on progress.Quality in health care : QHC · 1996
   Article
4. Quality improvement: a multiprofessional commodity?Quality in health care : QHC · 1996
   Article
5. Clinical audit and the purchaser-provider interaction: different attitudes and expectations in the United Kingdom.Quality in health care : QHC · 1996
   Article
6. Clinical audit: more research is required.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 1995
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as