Consensus publication guidelines: the next step in the science of quality improvement?

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Systematic review of conceptual criticisms of homeopathy.Heliyon · 2023
   Article
2. Ethical issues in using data from quality management programs.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2009
   Review
3. Publication guidelines for quality improvement studies in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2009
   Article
4. No respect: research in quality, safety, and process improvement.The Permanente journal · 2009
   Article
5. Publication guidelines for quality improvement studies in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project.Journal of general internal medicine · 2008
   Review
6. Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project.Quality & safety in health care · 2008
   Article
7. Proposed standards for quality improvement research and publication: one step forward and two steps back.Quality & safety in health care · 2006
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Proposed standards for quality improvement research and publication: one step forward and two steps back.2006
• Comment on
  Toward stronger evidence on quality improvement. Draft publication guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project.2005

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as