ReviewWorld journal of surgery2009
Appraising the quality of care in surgery.
Review in World journal of surgery, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Healthcare Privatization on Access to Surgical Care: Cholecystectomy as a Model.World journal of surgery · 2017Article
- Using a hybrid electronic medical record system for the surveillance of adverse surgical events and human error in a developing world surgical service.World journal of surgery · 2015Article
- Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for treating benign liver lesions: assessing quality of life in the first year after surgery.Updates in surgery · 2014Article
- Quality improvement activities for surgical services at district hospitals in developing countries and perceived barriers to quality improvement: findings from Ghana and the scientific literature.World journal of surgery · 2013Article
- Variation in access to pediatric surgical care among coexisting public and private providers: inguinal hernia as a model.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is currently no validated measurement system available for quality of care assessment in surgery despite all of the inherent benefits of such an approach. A structured quality framework needs to be developed and incorporate measures that are truly reflective of several important dimensions of care within the entire treatment episode. Presently this has been only partially addressed. These measures of quality can be categorized into clinical pathway measures (structure of care, process of care, outcome of care, and economic measures of care) and patient-reported measures (patient-reported treatment outcomes, health-related quality of life measures, and patient satisfaction). Combining these measures to create an overall composite quality score can be made feasible only if it is supported by the use of robust statistical methodology. It is important to use appropriate display of performance data to facilitate provider engagement in quality improvement initiatives. This article was designed to present such a structured approach of a quality framework, which is required to appraise the quality of care in surgery to enhance future quality improvement programmes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19430828What OpenQuestion holds
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.