Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25772630›Full record

Observational studyAnnals of hematology2015

Trends in quality of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma care: is it getting better?

J J C Stienen, P B Ottevanger, L Wennekes, S A M van de Schans, H M Dekker, R W M van der Maazen, J H J M van Krieken, N M A Blijlevens, R P M G Hermens, PEARL study group

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Annals of hematology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

J J C StienenDepartment of IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, PO box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, JozetteStienen@gmail.com.
P B Ottevanger
L Wennekes
S A M van de Schans
H M Dekker
R W M van der Maazen
J H J M van Krieken
N M A Blijlevens
R P M G Hermens
PEARL study group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study outlines trends in quality of delivered non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) care in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2011 and to what extend this was influenced by the national Visible Care program, which aimed at increasing transparency by providing insight into the quality of healthcare. We analyzed data collected from medical records in two observational studies, combined into 20 validated quality indicators (QIs) of which 6 were included in the national program. A random sample of 771 patients, diagnosed with NHL in 26 Dutch hospitals, was examined. Multilevel regression analyses were used to assess differences in quality of NHL care and to provide insight into the effect of the national program. We reported improved adherence to only 3 out of 6 QIs involved in the national program and none of the other 14 validated QIs. Improvement was shown for performance of all recommended staging techniques (from 26  to  43 %), assessment of International Prognostic Index (from 21  to  43 %), and multidisciplinary discussion of patients (from 23  to  41 %). We found limited improvement in quality of NHL care between 2007 and 2011; improvement potential (<80 % adherence) was still present for 13 QIs. The national program seems to have a small positive effect, but has not influenced all 20 indicators which represent the most important, measurable parts in quality of NHL care. These results illustrate the need for tailored implementation and quality improvement initiatives.

Indexed as

Lymphoma, Non-HodgkinQuality of Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedNetherlands

Identifiers

PMID25772630
PMCPMC4432098

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.