ArticleBMJ open2024
Conceptualising Centres of Clinical Excellence: A Scoping Review.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Criteria for establishing a centre of excellence in oncology: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Quality or Quantity? The Quiet Influence of Industry-Sponsored Centers of Excellence.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCentres of clinical excellence (CoCE) are healthcare facilities that provide excellent healthcare. However, despite their increasing prevalence, it is unclear how CoCE are identified and monitored. This paper explores how CoCE has been described in the literature, including its defining characteristics and selection and monitoring processes.
designWe conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework, enhanced by Levac DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search using MEDLINE Ovid, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and Scopus was conducted to identify relevant literature from January 2010 to June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included published studies and grey literature that described how a CoCE was defined, established, monitored or evaluated. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers completed the title and abstract screening, reviewed the full texts and extracted data.
results50 records describing 45 initiatives were included. More than half were published in the USA (n=25, 56%). All but one initiative focused on one clinical condition/population, most commonly cardiovascular disease (n=8, 17%), spinal surgeries (n=4, 9%) and pituitary tumours (n=4, 9%). Most initiatives (n=30, 67%) described a structured process to establish CoCE. The definitions of CoCE were not uniform. Common defining features included the volume of patients treated, medical expertise, a highly skilled multidisciplinary team, high-quality care and excellent patient outcomes. Identification as a CoCE varied from self-identification with no explicit criteria to application and assessment by an approval panel.
conclusionDespite a growing prevalence of CoCE, there are inconsistencies in how CoCE are established, identified, monitored and evaluated. Common (but not uniform) features of CoCE are highly skilled staff, high-quality care delivery and optimal patient outcomes.
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.