Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35657567›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023

Quality assurance and improvement in oncology using guideline-derived quality indicators - results of gynaecological cancer centres certified by the German cancer society (DKG).

E Griesshammer, S Wesselmann, M W Beckmann, C Dannecker, U Wagner, N T Sibert, R Armbrust, J Sehouli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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.

E GriesshammerCharité-University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany. griesshammer@krebsgesellschaft.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2022-4530
S WesselmannGerman Cancer Society e.V., 14057, Berlin, Germany.
M W BeckmannDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Erlangen, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
C DanneckerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital Augsburg, 86156, Augsburg, Germany.
U WagnerClinic for Gynecology, Gynecological Oncology and Gynecological Endocrinology, University Hospital of Giessen and Marburg (UKGM), Marburg, Germany.
N T SibertGerman Cancer Society e.V., 14057, Berlin, Germany.
R ArmbrustDepartment of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Charité-University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
J SehouliDepartment of Gynecology with Center for Oncological Surgery, Charité-University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBased on the example of Gynaecological Cancer Centres (GCCs) certified by the German Cancer Society, this study evaluates the results of medical-guideline-derived quality indicators (QIs) for cervical cancer (CC) and ovarian cancer (OC), examines the development of indicator implementation over time as well as the status of guideline-compliant care and identifies improvement measures.

methodsQI results for patients with CC and OC treated in GCCs between 2015 and 2019 are analysed. The median, overall proportion and standard deviation of each QI were calculated. Two-sided Cochran-Armitage tests were applied.

resultsQIs are divided into two categories: process-organization (PO-QIs) and treatment-procedures (TP-QIs), to allow a differentiated analysis for identifying improvement measures. PO-QIs that reflect the implementation of processes and structures show a high degree of application. PO-QIs have a tremendous influence on the quality of care and are easy to implement through SOPs. TP-QIs report on treatments that are performed in the GCC. TP-QIs that report on systemic therapies reach a plateau where the guideline is known, but patient-related-factors meaningfully prevent further increase. TP-QIs that report on surgical interventions fluctuate. The most relevant factors are practitioners' personal skills. Besides the discussion of results amongst peers during the audit, improvement measures could include surgical courses or coaching.

conclusionThe analysis shows that a combination of different measures is necessary to anchor quality sustainably in health care and thus improve it.

Indexed as

GynecologyNeoplasmsDelivery of Health CareHumansMedical OncologyQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareCertificationHealth service researchQuality assuranceQuality indicators

Identifiers

PMID35657567
PMCPMC10097788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.