Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28449530›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017

Quality improvement in the ICU: treat first what kills first.

Peter H J van der Voort

Abstract readEditorialComment
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Peter H J van der VoortDepartment of Intensive Care OLVG Hospital, Academic Director TIAS School for Business & Society, P.O. Box 95500, 1090 HM, Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Professionals in the ICU, like nurses and doctors, are constantly working on quality improvement by developing protocols and monitoring the implementation with indicators. Protocols and quality indicators are usually based on evidence. Studies on quality improvement often measure the effect of protocols after implementation but frequently cannot replicate the results of the previously performed RCTs in clinical practice. Amongst other reasons, this is due to the selection of patients that are included in RCTs. Several quality improvement initiatives can be studied together in daily practice as a bundle with a multifaceted approach. A recent study is discussed that shows that this approach can only give significant results when the interventions are focussed on the main processes that are related to the chosen outcome measures. Several different reasons are apparently the cause that quality improvement studies often reveal negative results. Quality improvement studies need to have a rigorous design and well-chosen endpoints.

Indexed as

critically illICUindicatormultifaceted approachQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID28449530
PMCPMC5393997

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.