ReviewImplementation science : IS2019
Guideline-based quality indicators-a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines.
Review in Implementation science : IS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The GIN-McMaster guideline tool extension for the integration of quality improvement and quality assurance in guidelines: a description of the methods for its development.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Prescribing variation across Europe: Insights into prescribing practices and educational needs.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Quality indicators in living kidney donation for transplantation: a scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Computer-Interpretable Quality Indicators for Intensive Care Medicine: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Developing an initial set of quality indicators for chiropractic care: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Educational value of international and intercultural differences in prescribing: the international and interprofessional student-run clinic project.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2023Article
- Factors Associated with the Quality and Transparency of National Guidelines: A Mixed-Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Variation in stroke care at the hospital level: A cross-sectional multicenter study.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- International experiences in the development and implementation of guideline-based quality indicators: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Correction to: Guideline-based quality indicators-a systematic comparison of German and international clinical practice guidelines.Implementation science : IS · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are relevant sources for generating quality indicators (QIs). The objective of this study was to compare guideline-based QIs of German and international CPGs and their underlying methodological approaches.
methodsWe conducted systematic searches in the guideline databases of G-I-N (Guidelines International Network) and NGC (National Guideline Clearinghouse) between February and June 2017 to identify international CPGs matching the topics of German evidence-based CPGs (n = 35) that report QIs, which were identified in a preceding study. Additionally, we searched the websites of the particular CPG providers for separate documents with regard to QIs. We included evidence-based CPGs which report QIs. Reported QIs, the underlying guideline recommendations, and information on methods of development were extracted. The selection and extraction of CPGs were conducted by one reviewer and checked by another. For each matched pair of CPGs, we assessed whether the suggested QIs matched or were not directly comparable.
resultsTwenty-five international CPGs, originating from seven CPG providers in total, met the criteria for inclusion. They matched the topics of 18 German CPGs. This resulted in 30 CPG pairs for the comparison of QIs (some of the international CPGs matched the topic of more than one German CPG). We found 27 QI pairs with QIs "not different or slightly different", corresponding to 13% (27 of 212) of the QIs in German CPGs and 16% (27 of 166) in international CPGs. Only two QI pairs were judged to be "different/inconsistent". For 183 of 212 (86%) QIs from German CPGs and 137 of 166 (83%) QIs from international CPGs, no direct comparison could be made. An explicit link to one or more guideline recommendations was found for 136 of 152 (89%) QIs from German CPGs and 82 of 166 (49%) QIs from international CPGs. Some information on methods for the development of QIs existed for 12 of 18 (67%) German CPGs and 8 of 25 (32%) international CPGs.
conclusionsThe majority of QIs in German and international CPGs were not comparable. Various reasons for this are conceivable. More transparent reporting of the underlying methods for generating guideline-based QIs is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.