ReviewRevista de saude publica2023
Validation of surgical care quality indicators in the Brazilian Unified Health System.
Review in Revista de saude publica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo validate a set of indicators for monitoring the quality of surgical procedures in the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS).
methodsValidation study developed in 5 stages: 1) literature review; 2) prioritization of indicators; 3) content validation of indicators by RAND/UCLA consensus method; 4) pilot study for reliability analysis; and 5) development of instruction for tabulation of outcome indicators for monitoring via official information systems.
resultsFrom the literature review, 217 indicators of surgical quality were identified. The excluded indicators were: those based on scientific evidence lower than 1A, similar, specific, which corresponded to sentinel events; and those that did not apply to the SUS context. Twenty-six indicators with a high level of scientific evidence were submitted to expert consensus. Twenty-two indicators were validated, of which 14 process indicators and 8 outcome indicators with content validation index ≥80%. Of the validated process indicators, 6 were considered substantially reliable (Kappa coefficient between 0.6 and 0.8; p < 0.05) and 2 had almost perfect reliability (Kappa coefficient > 0.8, p < 0.05), when the inter-rater agreement was analyzed. One could measure and establish tabulation mechanism for TabWin for 7 outcome indicators.
conclusionThe study contributes to the development of a set of potentially effective surgical indicators for monitoring the quality of care and patient safety in SUS hospital services.
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.