Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12468698›Full record

ArticleQuality & safety in health care2002

Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care.

S M Campbell, J Braspenning, A Hutchinson, M Marshall

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality & safety in health care, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 243 papers, 24 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
243citing papers in PubMed, 24 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

243 citing papers in PubMed, 24 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Quality indicators for hip fracture care, a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2018
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

183 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

S M CampbellNational Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. stephen.campbell@man.ac.uk
J Braspenning
A Hutchinson
M Marshall

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quality indicators have been developed throughout Europe primarily for use in hospitals, but also increasingly for primary care. Both development and application are important but there has been less research on the application of indicators. Three issues are important when developing or applying indicators: (1). which stakeholder perspective(s) are the indicators intended to reflect; (2). what aspects of health care are being measured; and (3). what evidence is available? The information required to develop quality indicators can be derived using systematic or non-systematic methods. Non-systematic methods such as case studies play an important role but they do not tap in to available evidence. Systematic methods can be based directly on scientific evidence by combining available evidence with expert opinion, or they can be based on clinical guidelines. While it may never be possible to produce an error free measure of quality, measures should adhere, as far as possible, to some fundamental a priori characteristics (acceptability, feasibility, reliability, sensitivity to change, and validity). Adherence to these characteristics will help maximise the effectiveness of quality indicators in quality improvement strategies. It is also necessary to consider what the results of applying indicators tell us about quality of care.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicResearch DesignConsensusEvidence-Based MedicineHealth Services ResearchHumansPrimary Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareSystems AnalysisUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID12468698
PMCPMC1758017

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.