ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2013
Audit and feedback had small but potentially important improvements in professional practice.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2013. 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.
- Fair Healthcare Practices in Orthopedics Assessed with a New Framework.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Assessment of Labor Practices in Healthcare Using an Innovatory Framework for Sustainability.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- An Innovative Framework for Sustainable Development in Healthcare: The Human Rights Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Ten-Year Follow-Up of Clinical Governance Implementation in Primary Care: Improving Screening, Diagnosis and Control of Cardiovascular Risk Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Description of a multidisciplinary initiative to improve SCIP measures related to pre-operative antibiotic prophylaxis compliance: a single-center success story.Patient safety in surgery · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, Medline, Ovid; Embase, CINAHL, EBSCO, Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISIWeb of Science STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of audit and feedback that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by two independent review authors using a data extraction form. The following factors were examined as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons; format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient and risk of bias within the trial itself. Risk of bias was assessed using EPOC criteria. The degree of confidence in the estimate of effect across studies was assessed using the GRADE approach. All outcomes were expressed as compliance with desired practice and both professional and patient outcomes were assessed, though separately.
resultsOne hundred and forty studies were included. Using 70 of these 108 comparisons were made. After excluding studies at high risk of bias there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies with dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%). For studies with continuous outcomes the weighted median adjusted percentage change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3%to 28.9%). For patient outcomes the weighted median RD was 0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) in studies reporting dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for studies with continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan.
conclusionsAudit and feedback generally lead to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice.
Identifiers
23579297What 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.