ArticleBMC health services research2009
A structured registration program can be validly used for quality assessment in general practice.
Article in BMC health services research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of Sigma Metrics Analysis for the Assessment and Modification of Quality Control Program in the Clinical Chemistry Laboratory of a Tertiary Care Hospital.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2017Article
- Design and implementation of the first nationwide, web-based Chinese Renal Data System (CNRDS).BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012Article
- Structured diabetes care leads to differences in organization of care in general practices: the healthcare professional and patient perspective.BMC health services research · 2011Article
- Is the quality of data in an electronic medical record sufficient for assessing the quality of primary care?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient information, medical history, clinical outcomes and demographic information, can be registered in different ways in registration programs. For evaluation of diabetes care, data can easily be extracted from a structured registration program (SRP). The usability of data from this source depends on the agreement of this data with that of the usual data registration in the electronic medical record (EMR).Aim of the study was to determine the comparability of data from an EMR and from an SRP, to determine whether the use of SRP data for quality assessment is justified in general practice.
methodsWe obtained 196 records of diabetes mellitus patients in a sample of general practices in the Netherlands. We compared the agreement between the two programs in terms of laboratory and non-laboratory parameters. Agreement was determined by defining accordance between the programs in absent and present registrations, accordance between values of registrations, and whether the differences found in values were also a clinically relevant difference.
resultsNo differences were found in the occurrence of registration (absent/present) in the SRP and EMR for all the laboratory parameters. Smoking behaviour, weight and eye examination were registered significantly more often in the SRP than in the EMR. In the EMR, blood pressure was registered significantly more often than in the SRP. Data registered in the EMR and in the SRP had a similar clinical meaning for all parameters (laboratory and non-laboratory).
conclusionsLaboratory parameters showed good agreement and non-laboratory acceptable agreement of the SRP with the EMR. Data from a structured registration program can be used validly for research purposes and quality assessment in general practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.