ArticleBMC cancer2017
Development of quality indicators for non-small cell lung cancer care: a first step toward assessing and improving quality of cancer care in China.
Article in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Development of a Nursing Quality Evaluation Indicator System for Lung Cancer in Traditional Chinese Medicine Based on the Donabedian Model: A Delphi Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Developing quality indicators for cancer hospitals in China: a national modified Delphi process.BMJ open · 2024Review
- Diagnostic work-up and systemic treatment for advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in four Southeast Asian countries.ESMO open · 2022Article
- Article
- Quality indicators in lung cancer: a review and analysis.BMJ open quality · 2021Review
- Perceived quality of care and its associated factors among Chinese patients with advanced cancer: findings from the APPROACH study in Beijing.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Article
- Treatment patterns and real-world evidence for stage III non-small cell lung cancer in Central and Eastern Europe.Radiology and oncology · 2020Article
- Implementation of lung cancer multidisciplinary teams: a review of evidence-practice gaps.Translational lung cancer research · 2020Review
- Optimizing lung cancer MDT data for maximum clinical impact-a scoping literature review.Translational lung cancer research · 2020Article
- Meta-Analysis of ERCC1 Protein Expression and Platinum Chemosensitivity in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge gap exists between clinical practice and recommended care and large room exists for the improvement of care quality for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in China. Results of some studies have shown that assessment of care quality can help to make improvement and the development of quality indicators is deemed as the initial and most essential part. Yet there is no such an indicators system specifically suitable for Chinese health care system. The goal of the study is to set up a group of Chinese quality indicators for NSCLC care and make it the first step towards the improvement of NSCLC care quality in China.
methodsWe constructed a new indicator framework based on the characteristics of NSCLC care and the nature of Chinese health care system. Under the new framework, potential indicators were collected and a 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted by a national multi-disciplinary Expert Panel to develop a set of indicators until they reached the final consensus.
resultsA new indicator framework (structure, process, communication, management of symptoms or treatment toxicity and outcome) was developed. Seventy four indicators were extracted from guidelines and relevant literatures as potential indicators; 43 indicators plus 1 suggested indicator were remained after the discussion of Round 1; questionnaires of Round 2 were rated by Expert Panel and 19 indicators met the inclusion criteria and entered Round 3; 2 of the eliminated indicators in Round 2 were retrieved by the Expert Panel at the in-person meeting (Round 3). Therefore, 21 indicators got the final consensus of the Expert Panel.
conclusionsGuided by the new indicator structure, a set of indicators suitable for Chinese healthcare system was developed and can be utilized to measure and improve the care quality of non-small cell lung cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.