ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2018
[Peer review-can we detect risk factors and errors to improve the quality of patient care?]
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcepts for measuring and improving the quality of patient care in hospitals have become increasingly important in recent years.
objectivesThe peer review procedure which has been developed by the Helios Clinic Group and Initiative for Quality Medicine (IQM) is described. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn peer review, medical records are reviewed by experienced external physicians. Inadequacies are identified, improvement protocols initiated, and concrete measures for improvement of patient care derived.
resultsThe described procedure is able to identify patient risks and errors during the course of treatment with the subsequent goal of avoiding repetition. In a retrospective, observational quality management study, peer review led to a significant decrease in mortality rates for various diseases.
conclusionsPeer review represents the optimal procedure of medical quality management by systematic review and open discussion with colleagues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29796698What 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.