ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2024
Quality Indicators of Pediatric Asthma Care in the Emergency Department; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 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, 0 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The quality of healthcare for pediatric asthma patients in the emergency department (ED) is of growing importance. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe existing quality indicators (QIs) designed for use in the ED for pediatric asthma care. Methods: We systematically searched three main electronic databases in May 2023 for all English-language qualitative and quantitative publications that suggested or described at least one QI related to pediatric asthma care in the ED. Two reviewers independently selected the included studies and extracted data on study characteristics, all relevant QIs reported, and the rates of compliance with these indicators when available. The identified QIs were classified according to Donabedian healthcare quality framework and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) framework. When feasible, we aggregated the compliance rates for the QIs reported in observational studies using random effects models. The quality assessment of the included studies was performed using various Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools. Results: We identified twenty studies, including six expert panels, 13 observational studies, and one trial. Together, these studies presented 129 QIs for use in EDs managing pediatric asthma. Among these QIs, 66 were pinpointed by expert panel studies, whereas 63 were derived from observational studies. Within the Donabedian framework, most indicators (86.8%) concentrated on the process of care. In contrast, within the Institute of Medicine (IOM) domain, the predominant focus was on indicators related to effectiveness and safety. Observational studies reported varying compliance rates for the 36 QIs identified in the expert studies. The included studies showed a wide range of bias risks, suggesting potential methodological variances. Conclusions: A significant number of QIs in pediatric asthma care have been proposed or documented in literature. Although most of these indicators prioritize the process of care, there is a conspicuous absence of outcome and structure indicators. This meta-analysis uncovered significant disparities in compliance to the identified QIs, highlighting the urgent necessity for targeted interventions to enhance pediatric asthma care in ED.
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.