Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26958310›Full record

Trial reportAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2015

Improving guideline concordance in multidisciplinary teams: preliminary results of a cluster-randomized trial evaluating the effect of a web-based audit and feedback intervention with outreach visits.

Mariëtte M van Engen-Verheul, Wouter T Gude, Sabine N van der Veer, Hareld M C Kemps, Monique M W Jaspers, Nicolette F de Keizer, Niels Peek

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Trial report in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. 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

7 authors.

Mariëtte M van Engen-VerheulDepartment of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wouter T GudeDepartment of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sabine N van der VeerEuropean Renal Best Practice (ERBP) Methods Support Team, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; MRC Health e-Research Centre, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Hareld M C KempsDepartment of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Cardiology, Máxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
Monique M W JaspersDepartment of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nicolette F de KeizerDepartment of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Niels PeekMRC Health e-Research Centre, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite their widespread use, audit and feedback (A&F) interventions show variable effectiveness on improving professional performance. Based on known facilitators of successful A&F interventions, we developed a web-based A&F intervention with indicator-based performance feedback, benchmark information, action planning and outreach visits. The goal of the intervention was to engage with multidisciplinary teams to overcome barriers to guideline concordance and to improve overall team performance in the field of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). To assess its effectiveness we conducted a cluster-randomized trial in 18 CR clinics (14,847 patients) already working with computerized decision support (CDS). Our preliminary results showed no increase in concordance with guideline recommendations regarding prescription of CR therapies. Future analyses will investigate whether our intervention did improve team performance on other quality indicators.

Indexed as

Cardiac RehabilitationDecision Support Systems, ClinicalFeedbackPatient Care TeamHumansInternet

Identifiers

PMID26958310
PMCPMC4765577

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.