Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25014674›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Can team-based care improve patient satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Jin Wen, Kevin A Schulman

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
17.3field-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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interprofessional Education: Current State in Psychology Training.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Alström syndrome: the journey to diagnosis.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jin WenDepartment of Hospital Management and Health Policy, Institute of Hospital Management, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Kevin A SchulmanDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America; Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Clinical Research Institute · USSichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTeam-based approaches to patient care are a relatively recent innovation in health care delivery. The effectiveness of these approaches on patient outcomes has not been well documented. This paper reports a systematic review of the relationship between team-based care and patient satisfaction.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PSYCHOINFO for eligible studies dating from inception to October 8, 2012. Eligible studies reported (1) a randomized controlled trial, (2) interventions including both team-based care and non-team-based care (or usual care), and (3) outcomes including an assessment of patient satisfaction. Articles with different settings between intervention and control were excluded, as were trial protocols. The reference lists of retrieved papers were also evaluated for inclusion.

resultsThe literature search yielded 319 citations, of which 77 were screened for further full-text evaluation. Of these, 27 articles were included in the systematic review. The 26 trials with a total of 15,526 participants were included in this systematic review. The pooling result of dichotomous data (number of studies: 10) showed that team-based care had a positive effect on patient satisfaction compared with usual care (odds ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.54 to 2.84); however, combined continuous data (number of studies: 7) demonstrated that there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between team-based care and usual care (standardized mean difference, -0.02; 95% confidence interval, -0.40 to 0.36).

conclusionsSome evidence showed that team-based care is better than usual care in improving patient satisfaction. However, considering the pooling result of continuous data, along with the suboptimal quality of included trials, further large-scale and high-quality randomized controlled trials comparing team-based care and usual care are needed.

Indexed as

Patient Care TeamFemaleHumansPatient SatisfactionRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25014674
PMCPMC4094385
OpenAlexW1994821078

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.