Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28973146›Full record

SynthesisFamily practice2018

Quality indicators for care of osteoarthritis in primary care settings: a systematic literature review.

Yelena Petrosyan, Yeva Sahakyan, Jan M Barnsley, Kerry Kuluski, Barbara Liu, Walter P Wodchis

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Routine-data-compatible quality indicators for the ambulatory care of osteoarthritis of the knee and hip: A systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Benchmarking Performance in Pancreatic Surgery: a Systematic Review of Published Quality Metrics.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Yelena PetrosyanInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Yeva SahakyanToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jan M BarnsleyInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kerry KuluskiInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Barbara LiuSunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Walter P WodchisInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

CIHR TTF-128263
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite the high prevalence of osteoarthritis and the prominence of primary care in managing this condition, there is no systematic summary of quality indicators applicable for osteoarthritis care in primary care settings. Objectives: This systematic review aimed to identify evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid EMBASE databases and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (i) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (ii) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with osteoarthritis in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Applicable quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework. Results: The search revealed 4526 studies, of which 32 studies were reviewed in detail and 4 studies met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and use of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 20 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlapped conceptually or in content. Conclusions: The process of developing quality indicators was methodologically suboptimal in most cases. There is a need to develop specific process, structure and outcome measures for adults with osteoarthritis using appropriate methodology.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareQuality Indicators, Health CareAdultHumansOsteoarthritisQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID28973146
PMCPMC5892173

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.