Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22436067›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2012

Methods for the guideline-based development of quality indicators--a systematic review.

Thomas Kötter, Eva Blozik, Martin Scherer

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 122 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
15.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

122 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 280 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Quality Indicators for Appropriate Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy in Adults: A Systematic Review and RAND-modified Delphi Procedure.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Guideline
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Development and early implementation of automated audit and feedback monitoring instruments in Belgian primary care: lessons for scalable systems.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2026
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

62 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas KötterDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. t.koetter@uke.de
Eva Blozik
Martin Scherer
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality indicators (QIs) are used in many healthcare settings to measure, compare, and improve quality of care. For the efficient development of high-quality QIs, rigorous, approved, and evidence-based development methods are needed. Clinical practice guidelines are a suitable source to derive QIs from, but no gold standard for guideline-based QI development exists. This review aims to identify, describe, and compare methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development.

methodsWe systematically searched medical literature databases (Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL) and grey literature. Two researchers selected publications reporting methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development. In order to describe and compare methodological approaches used in these publications, we extracted detailed information on common steps of guideline-based QI development (topic selection, guideline selection, extraction of recommendations, QI selection, practice test, and implementation) to predesigned extraction tables.

resultsFrom 8,697 hits in the database search and several grey literature documents, we selected 48 relevant references. The studies were of heterogeneous type and quality. We found no randomized controlled trial or other studies comparing the ability of different methodological approaches to guideline-based development to generate high-quality QIs. The relevant publications featured a wide variety of methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development, especially regarding guideline selection and extraction of recommendations. Only a few studies reported patient involvement.

conclusionsFurther research is needed to determine which elements of the methodological approaches identified, described, and compared in this review are best suited to constitute a gold standard for guideline-based QI development. For this research, we provide a comprehensive groundwork.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicHealth Plan ImplementationProgram EvaluationPublic HealthQuality Indicators, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID22436067
PMCPMC3368783
OpenAlexW2025008083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.