Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29025823›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Louise K Wiles, Peter D Hibbert, Jacqueline H Stephens, Enrico Coiera, Johanna Westbrook, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Ric O Day, Ken M Hillman, William B Runciman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Effects of a team Quality Improvement method in a national clinical audit programme of four clinical specialties in Ministry of Health hospitals in Saudi Arabia.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Louise K WilesPatient Safety and Healthcare Human Factors, Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health Sciences, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Peter D HibbertPatient Safety and Healthcare Human Factors, Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health Sciences, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jacqueline H StephensPatient Safety and Healthcare Human Factors, Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health Sciences, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Enrico CoieraCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Johanna WestbrookCentre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteCentre for Healthcare Resilience and Implementation Science, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ric O DaySt Vincent's Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
Ken M HillmanThe Simpson Centre for Health Services Research, South Western Sydney Clinical School, The University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.
William B RuncimanPatient Safety and Healthcare Human Factors, Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health Sciences, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite widespread availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), considerable gaps continue between the care that is recommended ('appropriate care') and the care provided. Problems with current CPGs are commonly cited as barriers to providing 'appropriate care'.Our study aims to develop and test an alternative method to keep CPGs accessible and up to date. This method aims to mitigate existing problems by using a single process to develop clinical standards (embodied in clinical indicators) collaboratively with researchers, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers. A transparent and inclusive online curated (purpose-designed, custom-built, wiki-type) system will use an ongoing and iterative documentation process to facilitate synthesis of up-to-date information and make available its provenance. All participants are required to declare conflicts of interest. This protocol describes three phases: engagement of relevant stakeholders; design of a process to develop clinical standards (embodied in indicators) for 'appropriate care' for common medical conditions; and evaluation of our processes, products and feasibility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A modified e-Delphi process will be used to gain consensus on 'appropriate care' for a range of common medical conditions. Clinical standards and indicators will be developed through searches of national and international guidelines, and formulated with explicit criteria for inclusion, exclusion, time frame and setting. Healthcare professionals and consumers will review the indicators via the wiki-based modified e-Delphi process. Reviewers will declare conflicts of interest which will be recorded and managed according to an established protocol. The provenance of all indicators and suggestions included or excluded will be logged from indicator inception to finalisation. A mixed-methods formative evaluation of our research methodology will be undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Human Research Ethics Committee approval has been received from the University of South Australia. We will submit the results of the study to relevant journals and offer national and international presentations.

Indexed as

ConsensusDelivery of Health CareDelphi TechniqueHealth PersonnelHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicProgram EvaluationQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementResearch Designconsensus development conferences as topichealthcarepractice guidelines as topicquality assurancequality indicators

Identifiers

PMID29025823
PMCPMC5652459

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.