Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11533425›Full record

ArticleQuality in health care : QHC2001

Expert consensus on the desirable characteristics of review criteria for improvement of health care quality.

H M Hearnshaw, R M Harker, F M Cheater, R H Baker, G M Grimshaw

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality in health care : QHC, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A practical guide to implementing clinical audit.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Quality indicators and quality assessment in child health.Archives of disease in childhood · 2009
    Review
  19. Recommendations on chronic constipation (including constipation associated with irritable bowel syndrome) treatment.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2007
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

H M HearnshawCentre for Primary Health Care Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. hilary.hearnshaw@warwick.ac.uk
R M Harker
F M Cheater
R H Baker
G M Grimshaw

Funding

Department of Health HTA/95/21/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify the desirable characteristics of review criteria for quality improvement and to determine how they should be selected.

backgroundReview criteria are the elements against which quality of care is assessed in quality improvement. Use of inappropriate criteria may impair the effectiveness of quality improvement activities and resources may be wasted in activities that fail to facilitate improved care.

methodsA two round modified Delphi process was used to generate consensus amongst an international panel of 38 experts. A list of 40 characteristics of review criteria, identified from literature searches, was distributed to the experts who were asked to rate the importance and feasibility of each characteristic. Comments and suggestions for characteristics not included in the list were also invited.

resultsThe Delphi process refined a comprehensive literature based list of 40 desirable characteristics of review criteria into a more precise list of 26 items. The expert consensus view is that review criteria should be developed through a well documented process involving consideration of valid research evidence, possibly combined with expert opinion, prioritisation according to health outcomes and strength of evidence, and pilot testing. Review criteria should also be accompanied by full clear information on how they might be used and how data might be collected and interpreted.

conclusionThe desirable characteristics for review criteria have been identified and will be of use in the development, evaluation, and selection of review criteria, thus improving the cost effectiveness of quality improvement activities in healthcare settings.

Indexed as

Consensus Statements as TopicDelphi TechniqueQuality Indicators, Health CareEvidence-Based MedicineGroup ProcessesHumansQuality Assurance, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID11533425
PMCPMC1743436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.