Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29200976›Full record

ReviewCurrent anesthesiology reports2017

Improvement Science in Anaesthesia.

Duncan T Wagstaff, James Bedford, S Ramani Moonesinghe

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current anesthesiology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Duncan T WagstaffUCL/UCLH Surgical Outcome Research Centre (SOuRCe), 3rd Floor, Maple Link Corridor, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK.
James BedfordUCL/UCLH Surgical Outcome Research Centre (SOuRCe), 3rd Floor, Maple Link Corridor, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK.
S Ramani MoonesingheUCL/UCLH Surgical Outcome Research Centre (SOuRCe), 3rd Floor, Maple Link Corridor, University College Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis article offers an overview of the history and features of Improvement Science in general and some of its applications to Anaesthesia in particular. RECENT

findingsImprovement Science is an evolving discipline aiming to generate learning from quality improvement interventions. An increasingly common approach to improving Anaesthesia services is to employ large-scale perioperative data measurement and feedback programmes. Improvement Science offers important insights on questions such as which indicators to collect data for; how to capture that data; how it can be presented in engaging visual formats; how it could/should be fed back to frontline staff and how they can be supported in their use of data to generate improvement. SUMMARY: Data measurement and feedback systems represent opportunities for anaesthetists to work with multidisciplinary colleagues to help improve services and outcomes for surgical patients. Improvement Science can help evaluate which approaches work, and in which contexts, and is therefore of value to healthcare commissioners, providers and patients.

Indexed as

AnaesthesiaData feedbackImprovement ScienceQuality

Identifiers

PMID29200976
PMCPMC5696442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.