SynthesisDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2016
[The validity of routine data on quality assurance: A qualitative systematic review].
Synthesis in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive factors for recording the death of women of childbearing age in the Hospital Information System (SIH/SUS), Brazil, 2012-2020.Revista brasileira de epidemiologia = Brazilian journal of epidemiology · 2024Article
- [Trust and reliability in surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017Article
- Myocutaneous transpelvic flaps do improve quality of life and help to reduce wound healing complications in patients receiving abdominoperineal resection in the real world.International journal of colorectal disease · 2016Article
- Administrative Data Should Be Questioned.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe assessment of the quality of medical practice is a legitimate requirement by society. Reliable methods for measurement of the quality of performance are sought worldwide. Quality is often quantified by using administrative data and in Germany this method has been implemented by the health insurance company AOK.
objectives(1) How is the AOK quality system rated by senior consultant surgeons? (2) How valid are quality statements derived from administrative data?
methodsThis article was compiled following the PRISMA (i.e. preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) statement for qualitative systematic reviews. In order to answer the first question the Professional Association of German Surgeons (Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgen) initiated two surveys and to answer the second question a structured literature search following the PICO (i.e. patient problem or population, intervention, comparison control or comparator and outcomes) format was initiated. In addition numerous websites were contacted.
resultsOf the responding senior consultant surgeons 95% considered that the AOK method of quality measurement by administrative data is not objective. One third was definitely wrongly classified. The literature search revealed that no validation data exist for the AOK indicators, including the Elixhauser comorbidity risk score. Altogether, the sensitivity of indicators is poor when good sensitivity is defined by the Institute for Applied Quality Improvement and Research in Health Care (AQUA Institute) as ≥ 80 < 90%.
conclusionsQuality statements resulting from administrative data alone are unreliable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25971608What 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.