Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27118288›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Impact of clinical registries on quality of patient care and health outcomes: protocol for a systematic review.

Dewan Md Emdadul Hoque, Varuni Kumari, Rasa Ruseckaite, Lorena Romero, Sue M Evans

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Medium cut-off dialyzers in a large population of hemodialysis patients in Colombia: COREXH registry.Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy · 2021
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Review
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

5 authors.

Dewan Md Emdadul HoqueDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine (DEPM), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia International Centre for Diarrhoeal Diseases Research in Bangladesh (ICDDR,B), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Varuni KumariDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine (DEPM), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Rasa RuseckaiteDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine (DEPM), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lorena RomeroThe Ian Potter Library, Ground Floor, AMREP, Building, The Alfred, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sue M EvansDepartment of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine (DEPM), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMany developed countries have regional and national clinical registries aimed at improving health outcomes of patients diagnosed with particular diseases or cared for in particular healthcare settings. Clinical quality registries (CQRs) are clinical registries established with the purpose of monitoring quality of care and providing feedback to improve health outcomes. The aim of this systematic review is to understand the impact of CQRs on (1) mortality/survival; (2) measures of outcome that reflect a process or outcome of healthcare; (3) healthcare utilisation and (4) costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PRISMA-P methodology, checklist and standard strategy using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and structured data abstraction tools will be followed. A search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and CINAHL will be undertaken, in addition to Google Scholar and grey literature, to identify studies in English covering the period January 1980 to December 2014. Case-control, cohort, randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials which describe the registry as an intervention will be eligible for inclusion. Narrative synthesis of study findings will be conducted, guided by a conceptual framework developed to analyse the outcome measure of the registry using defined criteria. If sufficient studies are identified with a similar outcome of interest and measure using the same comparator and time of interval, results will be pooled for random-effects meta-analysis. Test for heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis will be conducted. To identify reporting bias, forest plots and funnel plots will be created and, if required, Egger's test will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. Review results will be published as a part of thesis, peer-reviewed journal and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015017319.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineRegistriesDelivery of Health CareHospitalizationHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient CareSystematic Reviews as TopicClinical outcome and systematic reviewQuality of patient careRegistries

Identifiers

PMID27118288
PMCPMC4853981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.