Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28441270›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in urology2017

Improving quality through clinical registries in urology.

Mark D Tyson, Daniel A Barocas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. 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

2 authors.

Mark D TysonDepartment of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Daniel A Barocas

Funding

Surgical Oncology Training GrantT32CA106183 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI James Richard Goldenring · 2004 to 2026
$6.0M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA106183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewIn this review, we highlight the use of clinical registries for quality improvement and research purposes in urology. We focus on national and regional clinical database registries, such as the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme, the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor, the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement collaborative and the American Urological Association Quality Registry programme. RECENT

findingsIt is widely known that claims-based and institutional databases are limited in their capacity to provide granular, real-time data for quality improvement purposes. As a result, clinical registries have emerged as an attractive alternative given their ability to capture large amounts of data across networks of health records. Another added benefit of Federally Qualified Clinical Data Registries (QCDRs) is the ability to meet emerging Medicare quality reporting standards, such as Physician Quality Reporting System and Meaningful Use. Despite the enthusiasm for QCDRs in the field of urology, however, myriad challenges remain in their implementation and widespread adoption including integration of existing health-information technology infrastructure, the accurate measurement of quality measures and the availability of clinically relevant quality measures in subspecialty practices. SUMMARY: Quality measurement and improvement have become important aspects of modern clinical practice. Advances in health information technology have ushered in new tools, such as clinical registries, which simultaneously improve the quality of scientific research and clinical care while assisting eligible professionals in meeting federally mandated reporting requirements.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualQuality ImprovementUrologyData AccuracyHealth Information ManagementHumansMaleNeoplasmsProstateRegistriesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID28441270
PMCPMC5567830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.