Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27053926›Full record

ReviewClinics in colon and rectal surgery2014

Objective Assessment of Quality Measurement and Improvement.

Aneel Damle, Karim Alavi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Aneel DamleDepartment of General Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts.
Karim AlaviDivision of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate quality measurement that allows for and results in improvement is essential to colon and rectal surgery. Currently, no consensus exists as to which variables are most important in measuring outcomes. Debate continues concerning the "best" variables to measure from a structural, process, and outcomes standpoint. Although American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program provides an opportunity for outcomes measurement in general and vascular surgery, there is no specific quality improvement tool available for colon and rectal surgery. However, there is growing literature testing the validity of candidate variables to be used in such a data collection system. This article evaluates the current objective assessment measurements used for quality improvement in colon and rectal surgery.

Indexed as

colorectaloutcomesprocessesquality improvementquality measure

Identifiers

PMID27053926
PMCPMC4812664

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.