ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Quality indicators and development targets in the national clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. 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.
- Quality indicators for cervical screening in Sweden.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Danish clinical quality registries monitor and improve the quality of care, using quality indicators and defined development targets referred to as 'standards'. This study aims to investigate the fulfilment of standards in the Danish clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening.
methodsData was included from annual reports in the 27 Danish clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening. The most recent report from each registry was downloaded the 13 December 2023. Indicators were included if: evaluating care or screening over 12 months, presenting a well-defined standard with a desired direction and presenting the proportion and number of individuals for which the standard was fulfilled. Data were extracted on national and regional levels for the last 3 years, and fulfilment of standards was presented as the proportion of indicators that fulfilled the standard within each unit of comparison.
resultsIn total, 216 quality indicators were included. At the national and regional level, standards were fulfilled for 75% and 71%, respectively. Fulfilment within the registries varied from 5% to 100% on national and 12% to 99% on regional level. Standards were more often fulfilled for result (than process indicators) and for established (than supplemental indicators). Altogether, 43% of the standards were fulfilled across all regions delivering data for the specific indicator.
conclusionsThe approach to defining standards for clinical quality indicators as conservative minimum or ambitious development targets varied in the Danish clinical quality registries in cancer care and screening. This deviating behaviour seriously restrains possibilities for comparing clinical quality across cancers despite the robust infrastructure of the quality registries, limiting the possibilities for overview and prioritising resources and attention to the most urgent cancers.
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.