Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24828810›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the American Thoracic Society2014

An official American thoracic society workshop report: developing performance measures from clinical practice guidelines.

Jeremy M Kahn, Michael K Gould, Jerry A Krishnan, Kevin C Wilson, David H Au, Colin R Cooke, Ivor S Douglas, Laura C Feemster, Richard A Mularski, Christopher G Slatore and 2 more

Abstract readConference Proceedings
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. The importance of rigorous evaluation of quality measurement programs.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2015
    Article
  20. Is It Time for a Patient-Centered Quality Measure of Asthma Control?The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice
    Review
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

12 authors.

Jeremy M Kahn
Michael K Gould
Jerry A Krishnan
Kevin C Wilson
David H Au
Colin R Cooke
Ivor S Douglas
Laura C Feemster
Richard A Mularski
Christopher G Slatore
Renda Soylemez Wiener
ATS Ad Hoc Committee on the Development of Performance Measures from ATS Guidelines

Funding

Improving decisions about evaluating pulmonary nodules for lung cancerK07CA138772 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI WIENER, RENDA SOYLEMEZ · 2009 to 2013
$860k
Understanding Variation in the Use of Critical Care ServicesK08HS020672 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI COOKE, COLIN · 2012 to 2016
$768k
Facilitating adoption of COPD evidence-based care in outpatient settings (FACES)K23HL111116 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FEEMSTER, LAURA CECERE · 2013 to 2017
$481k
AHRQ HHS K08 HS020672NCI NIH HHS K07 CA138772NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL111116
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many health care performance measures are either not based on high-quality clinical evidence or not tightly linked to patient-centered outcomes, limiting their usefulness in quality improvement. In this report we summarize the proceedings of an American Thoracic Society workshop convened to address this problem by reviewing current approaches to performance measure development and creating a framework for developing high-quality performance measures by basing them directly on recommendations from well-constructed clinical practice guidelines. Workshop participants concluded that ideally performance measures addressing care processes should be linked to clinical practice guidelines that explicitly rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations, such as the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process. Under this framework, process-based performance measures would only be developed from strong recommendations based on high- or moderate-quality evidence. This approach would help ensure that clinical processes specified in performance measures are both of clear benefit to patients and supported by strong evidence. Although this approach may result in fewer performance measures, it would substantially increase the likelihood that quality-improvement programs based on these measures actually improve patient care.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEvidence-Based MedicineGuideline AdherencePractice Guidelines as TopicHumansOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePulmonary MedicineQuality Assurance, Health CareSocieties, MedicalUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24828810
PMCPMC5469393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.