ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2019
Quality of Care Indicators in Patients with Acute Pancreatitis.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acute pancreatitis: mechanisms and therapeutic approaches.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Impact of Interhospital Transfer on Outcomes in Acute Pancreatitis: Implications for Healthcare Quality.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Drug-Induced Acute Pancreatitis in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Efficacy of Graded Emergency Nursing on Acute Pancreatitis Patients: A Meta-Analysis.Iranian journal of public health · 2021Review
- Quantitating Quality Measurements of Acute Pancreatitis Management.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute pancreatitis (AP) is a common and expensive condition. Improving quality of care in AP is vital to minimizing cost and improving patient outcomes. However, there has been little work accomplished toward developing and validating explicit quality indicators (QIs) in AP.
aimsTo define quality of care in patients with AP by developing explicit QIs using standardized techniques.
methodsWe used the UCLA/RAND Delphi panel approach to combine a comprehensive literature review with the collective judgment of experts to identify a defined set of process measures for AP.
resultsWe produced 164 candidate QIs after a comprehensive literature review. After Delphi review, 75 had a median rating ≥ 7. We excluded 11 QIs where the disagreement index exceeded 1.0 and combined indicators overlapping in content to produce a final list of 22 QIs. Overall, 8 QIs related to diagnosis, prevention, or determination of etiology, 2 QIs focused on determination of severity, 3 QIs captured fluid resuscitation, 2 QIs measured nutrition, 1 QI use of antibiotics, and 6 QIs captured endoscopic or surgical management.
conclusionsWe have developed 22 QIs spanning the spectrum of AP management including diagnosis, risk stratification, and pharmacological and endoscopic therapy. These QIs will facilitate future quality improvement by practitioners and organizations who treat patients with AP and further identify areas that are amenable to improvement to enhance patient care. We anticipate that this QI set will represent the first step in determining a framework for demonstrating value in the care of patients with AP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31152333What 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.