Trial reportClinical medicine (London, England)2010
A randomised trial of peer review: the UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project.
Trial report in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Educational interventions for health professionals managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Self-management interventions including action plans for exacerbations versus usual care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Impact of a peer-review network on the quality of inpatient low secure mental health services: cluster randomised control trial.BMC health services research · 2018Trial
- Impact of peer-led quality improvement networks on quality of inpatient mental health care: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC psychiatry · 2016Article
- Two decades of external peer review of cancer care in general hospitals; the Dutch experience.Cancer medicine · 2016Article
- Regional variation in breast cancer treatment in the Netherlands and the role of external peer review: a cohort study comprising 63,516 women.BMC cancer · 2014Article
- The impact of organisational external peer review on colorectal cancer treatment and survival in the Netherlands.British journal of cancer · 2014Article
- Collaborative working within UK NHS secondary care and across sectors for COPD and the impact of peer review: qualitative findings from the UK National COPD Resources and Outcomes Project.International journal of integrated care · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer review has been widely employed within the NHS to facilitate health quality improvement but has not been rigorously evaluated. This article reports the largest randomised trial of peer review ever conducted in the UK. The peer review intervention was a reciprocal supportive exercise that included clinicians, hospital management, commissioners and patients which focused on the quality of the provision of four specific evidence-based aspects of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease care. Follow up at 12 months demonstrated few quantitative differences in the number or quality of services offered in the two groups. Qualitative data in contrast suggested many benefits of peer review in most but not all intervention units and some control teams. Findings suggest peer review in this format is a positive experience for most participants but is ineffective in some situations. Its longer term benefits and cost effectiveness require further study. The generic findings of this study have potential implications for the application of peer review throughout the NHS.
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.