Improvement through inspection? The development of the new Commission for Health Improvement in England and Wales.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

1. Patient neglect in healthcare institutions: a systematic review and conceptual model.BMC health services research · 2013
   Pooled it
2. Experimental studies to improve the reliability and validity of regulatory judgments on health care in the Netherlands: a randomized controlled trial and before and after case study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2014
   Trial
3. How can specialist investigation agencies inform system-wide learning for patient safety? A qualitative study of perspectives on the early years of the English Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch.Journal of health services research & policy · 2025
   Article
4. The rise of regulation in the NHS.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2002
   Review

Corrections and comments

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

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as