ArticleBMJ open2023
Variation in quality of care by medical institute level in China: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionQuality variation has been widely witnessed and discussed in China. However, limited evidence reveals quality gaps by the medical institute level, especially between hospitals and primary care institutes. This systematic review will synthesise the available evidence on quality variation between medical institutes at different levels in China. By adopting a quality framework, we will also explore the detailed domains (structure, process and outcomes) and dimensions (safety, effectiveness, timeliness, patient-centredness, efficiency, integration and equity) of quality gaps. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An extensive literature search will be conducted on eight key electronic databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, ProQuest, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and WANFANG database. The Grey Matter Checklist will be used to screen relevant grey literature. The publication time limit should be before 31 December 2022 when we plan to conduct a literature search. All kinds of studies that revealed the quality difference between medical institutes at different levels will be included, no matter if quality improvement intervention is involved. All quality measures and indicators will be recorded and sorted into appropriate domains and dimensions. For those studies that took the completion rate of standard operations to assess the quality, we will also record the name of the clinical pathways, guidelines or checklists used. Two reviewers will independently perform the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment process. A narrative or quantitative synthesis will be performed based on the available data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not applicable. The results of this study will be submitted to a widely accepted peer-review journal. The findings will also be used to inform administration about quality gaps by different medical institute levels and, therefore, help them to design policies that will minimise the quality variation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022345933.
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.