ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Towards a New System for the Assessment of the Quality in Care Pathways: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.
Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pathways to mental health services across local health systems in sub-Saharan Africa: Findings from a systematic review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- An exploration of the organizational performance of a care pathway applied to ambulatory surgery: a systems approach.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- A cost comparison between patients undergoing robotic colorectal surgery with and without a clinical pathway.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- Simulation research on the clinical path of non-small cell lung cancer surgery based on time petri net.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Impact of a multidisciplinary care pathway on follow-up and emergency department utilisation in paediatric musculoskeletal infections.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Development and provider assessment of a new oncology network with care pathways for gastrointestinal cancer patients: the collaborative approach.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Visual Modeling Languages in Patient Pathways: Scoping Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Care pathways versus usual care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Variability in Care Pathways for Hip Fracture Patients in The Netherlands.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Effective Clinical Pathway Improves Interprofessional Collaboration and Reduces Antibiotics Prophylaxis Use in Orthopedic Surgery in Hospitals in Indonesia.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical or care pathways are developed by a multidisciplinary team of healthcare practitioners, based on clinical evidence, and standardized processes. The evaluation of their framework/content quality is unclear. The aim of this study was to describe which tools and domains are able to critically evaluate the quality of clinical/care pathways. An overview of systematic reviews was conducted, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, using Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library, from 2015 to 2020, and with snowballing methods. The quality of the reviews was assessed with Assessment the Methodology of Systematic Review (AMSTAR-2) and categorized with The Leuven Clinical Pathway Compass for the definition of the five domains: processes, service, clinical, team, and financial. We found nine reviews. Three achieved a high level of quality with AMSTAR-2. The areas classified according to The Leuven Clinical Pathway Compass were: 9.7% team multidisciplinary involvement, 13.2% clinical (morbidity/mortality), 44.3% process (continuity-clinical integration, transitional), 5.6% financial (length of stay), and 27.0% service (patient-/family-centered care). Overall, none of the 300 instruments retrieved could be considered a gold standard mainly because they did not cover all the critical pathway domains outlined by Leuven and Health Technology Assessment. This overview shows important insights for the definition of a multiprinciple framework of core domains for assessing the quality of pathways. The core domains should consider general critical aspects common to all pathways, but it is necessary to define specific domains for specific diseases, fast pathways, and adapting the tool to the cultural and organizational characteristics of the health system of each country.
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.