Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17142594›Full record

SynthesisQuality & safety in health care2006

Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback.

Gro Jamtvedt, Jane M Young, Doris T Kristoffersen, Mary Ann O'Brien, Andrew D Oxman

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality & safety in health care, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03000751 (CT Dose Optimization and Standardization Endeavor), which is not on this map. Cited by 127 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
127citing papers in PubMed, 10 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.

NCT03000751 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

CT Dose Optimization and Standardization Endeavor (DOSE) Collaboratory

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2016 to 2020Enrolled864,080ConditionsIonizing Radiation Exposure, Quality ImprovementArmsSimple Audit Report, Multi-Component Intervention, In-Person Meeting
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

127 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Improving child protection in the emergency department: a systematic review of professional interventions for health care providers.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2010
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Impact of performance and information feedback on medical interns' confidence-accuracy calibration.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2024
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Multifaceted Intervention to Increase the Use of Home Dialysis: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN · 2022
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Evaluation of an intervention to improve blood culture practices: a cluster randomised trial.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2014
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

67 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

5 authors.

Gro JamtvedtNorwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway. gro.jamtvedt@nokc.no
Jane M Young
Doris T Kristoffersen
Mary Ann O'Brien
Andrew D Oxman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany people advocate audit and feedback as a strategy for improving professional practice. The main results of an update of a Cochrane review on the effects of audit and feedback are reported. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register up to January 2004 was searched. Randomised trials of audit and feedback that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes were included. REVIEW

methodsData were independently extracted and the quality of studies were assessed by two reviewers. Quantitative, visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. MAIN

results118 trials are included in the review. In the primary analysis, 88 comparisons from 72 studies were included that compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a component to no intervention. For dichotomous outcomes, the median-adjusted risk difference of compliance with desired practice was 5% (interquartile range 3-11). For continuous outcomes, the median-adjusted percentage change relative to control was 16% (interquartile range 5-37). Low baseline compliance with recommended practice and higher intensity of audit and feedback appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback.

conclusionsAudit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. The effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low and intensity of audit and feedback is high.

Indexed as

Feedback, PsychologicalMedical AuditEducation, Medical, ContinuingHealth Services ResearchHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID17142594
PMCPMC2464905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.