Trial reportAnnals of family medicine
Clinical Quality Measure Exchange is Not Easy.
Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicians' Choice of Board Certification Activity Is Unaffected by Baseline Quality of Care: The TRADEMaRQ Study.Annals of family medicineTrial
- The role of medical regulations and medical regulators in fostering the use of eHealth data for strengthened continuing professional development (CPD): a document analysis with key informants' interviews.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The Need for Coaches in the Clinical World.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe Trial of Aggregate Data Exchange for Maintenance of Certification and Raising Quality was a randomized controlled trial which first had to test whether quality reporting could be a by-product of clinical care. We report on the initial descriptive study of the capacity for and quality of exchange of whole-panel, standardized quality measures from health systems.
methodsFamily physicians were recruited from 4 health systems with mature quality measurement programs and agreed to submit standardized, physician-level quality measures for consenting physicians. Identified measure or transfer errors were captured and evaluated for root-cause problems.
resultsThe health systems varied considerably by patient demographics and payer mix. From the 4 systems, 256 family physicians elected to participate. Of 19 measures negotiated for use, 5 were used by all systems. There were more than 15 types of identified errors including breaks in data delivery, changes in measures, and nonsensical measure results. Only 1 system had no identified errors.
conclusionsThe secure transfer of standardized, physician-level quality measures from 4 health systems with mature measure processes proved difficult. There were many errors that required human intervention and manual repair, precluding full automation. This study reconfirms an important problem, namely, that despite widespread health information technology adoption and federal meaningful use policies, we remain far from goals to make clinical quality reporting a reliable by-product of care.
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.