Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36175760›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022

Evidence-Based Quality Improvement: a Scoping Review of the Literature.

Susanne Hempel, Maria Bolshakova, Barbara J Turner, Jennifer Dinalo, Danielle Rose, Aneesa Motala, Ning Fu, Chase G Clemesha, Lisa Rubenstein, Susan Stockdale

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Susanne HempelSouthern California Evidence Review Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Maria BolshakovaSouthern California Evidence Review Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Barbara J TurnerGehr Family Center for Health Systems Science and Innovation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jennifer DinaloUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Danielle RoseCenter for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Aneesa MotalaSouthern California Evidence Review Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Ning FuSouthern California Evidence Review Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. fu.ning@mail.shufe.edu.cn.
Chase G ClemeshaUniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Lisa RubensteinRAND Health, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA.
Susan StockdaleCenter for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality improvement (QI) initiatives often reflect approaches based on anecdotal evidence, but it is unclear how initiatives can best incorporate scientific literature and methods into the QI process. Review of studies of QI initiatives that aim to systematically incorporate evidence review (termed evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI)) may provide a basis for further methodological development.

methodsIn this scoping review (registration: https://osf.io/hr5bj ) of EBQI, we searched the databases PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. The review addressed three central questions: How is EBQI defined? How is evidence used to inform evidence-informed QI initiatives? What is the effectiveness of EBQI?

resultsWe identified 211 publications meeting inclusion criteria. In total, 170 publications explicitly used the term "EBQI." Published definitions emphasized relying on evidence throughout the QI process. We reviewed a subset of 67 evaluations of QI initiatives in primary care, including both studies that used the term "EBQI" with those that described an evidence-based initiative without using EBQI terminology. The most frequently reported EBQI components included use of evidence to identify previously tested effective QI interventions; engaging stakeholders; iterative intervention development; partnering with frontline clinicians; and data-driven evaluation of the QI intervention. Effectiveness estimates were positive but varied in size in ten studies that provided data on patient health outcomes.

conclusionsEBQI is a promising strategy for integrating relevant prior scientific findings and methods systematically in the QI process, from the initial developmental phase of the IQ initiative through to its evaluation. Future QI researchers and practitioners can use these findings as the basis for further development of QI initiatives.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementHumansevidence-basedquality improvementscoping review

Identifiers

PMID36175760
PMCPMC9708973

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.