SynthesisBMJ open quality2024
Use of statistical process control in quality improvement projects in abdominal surgery: a PRISMA systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open quality, 2024. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of quality improvement methodology has increased in recent years due to a perceived benefit in effectively reducing morbidity, mortality and length of stay. Statistical process control (SPC) is an important tool to evaluate these actions, but its use has been limited in abdominal surgery. Previous systematic reviews have examined the use of SPC in healthcare, but relatively few surgery-related articles were found at that time.
objectiveTo perform a systematic review (SR) to evaluate the application of SPC on abdominal surgery specialties between 2004 and 2019.
methodsAn SR following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram was completed using Embase and Ovid Medline with terms related to abdominal surgery and SPC.
resultsA total of 20 articles were selected after applying the exclusion criteria. Most of the articles came from North America, Europe and Australia, and half have been published in the last 5 years. The most common outcome studied was surgical complications. Urology, colorectal and paediatric surgery made up most of the articles. Articles show the application of SPC in various outcomes and the use of different types of graphs, demonstrating flexibility in using SPC. However, some studies did not use SPC in a robust way and these studies were of variable quality.
conclusionThis study shows that SPCs are being applied increasingly for most surgical specialties; however, it is still less used than in other fields, such as anaesthesia. We identified conceptual errors in several studies, such as issues with the design or incorrect data analysis. SPCs can be used to increase the quality of surgical care; the use should increase, but critically, the analysis needs to improve to prevent erroneous conclusions being drawn.
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.