Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30852557›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2019

Reinvigorating stagnant science: implementation laboratories and a meta-laboratory to efficiently advance the science of audit and feedback.

J M Grimshaw, Noah Ivers, Stefanie Linklater, Robbie Foy, Jill J Francis, Wouter T Gude, Sylvia J Hysong, Audit and Feedback MetaLab

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Audit and Feedback Interventions for Antibiotic Prescribing in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Review

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

J M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada jgrimshaw@ohri.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8015-8243
Noah IversWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Stefanie LinklaterClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Robbie FoyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Jill J FrancisHealth Services Research and Management Division, City University of London, London, UK.
Wouter T GudeDepartment of Medical Informatics, Academic Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7941-5281
Sylvia J HysongCenter for Innovations in Quality Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9063-5207
Audit and Feedback MetaLab

Funding

A knowledge-based message tailoring systemK01LM012528 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI LANDIS-LEWIS, ZACHARY · 2017 to 2019
$523k
CIHR FDN-143269NLM NIH HHS K01 LM012528
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a commonly used quality improvement (QI) approach. A Cochrane review indicates that A&F is generally effective and leads to modest improvements in professional practice but with considerable variation in the observed effects. While we have some understanding of factors that enhance the effects of A&F, further research needs to explore when A&F is most likely to be effective and how to optimise it. To do this, we need to move away from two-arm trials of A&F compared with control in favour of head-to-head trials of different ways of providing A&F. This paper describes implementation laboratories involving collaborations between healthcare organisations providing A&F at scale, and researchers, to embed head-to-head trials into routine QI programmes. This can improve effectiveness while producing generalisable knowledge about how to optimise A&F. We also describe an international meta-laboratory that aims to maximise cross-laboratory learning and facilitate coordination of A&F research.

Indexed as

FeedbackMedical AuditQuality ImprovementHealth Services ResearchHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePractice Patterns, Physicians'Professional PracticeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicaudit and feedbackimplementation sciencequality improvementrandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID30852557
PMCPMC6559780

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.