Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39990512›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2025

Benchmarking in inflammatory bowel disease: lessons from Australia and New Zealand.

Peter Litwin, Jane Andrews

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Peter LitwinDepartment of Gastroenterology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1194-1116
Jane AndrewsDepartment of Gastroenterology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a complex chronic disease estimated to affect almost 1% of the Western population, where proactive care has largely replaced a reactive approach. Whilst there have also been great strides in new care models and therapies, care quality, and outcomes are poorly known, leaving us designing and delivering services without an effective feedback loop. Quality of care, guidelines, consensus statements, and standards will each be discussed, as a solid understanding of these concepts is essential. Assessing quality involves measuring the 3 core domains of structure, process, and outcomes. Benchmarking is an extension of quality assessment, which is recurrent or continuous and enables transparent, valid comparisons of quality between care sites. Assessment of QUALITY and BENCHMARKING are resource intensive unless processes are automated and use routinely collected data generated in the moments of care. Digital tools now provide realistic opportunities to make this affordable and sustainable, though concerns around privacy and security hamper solutions, whilst siloed data within institutions restrict comparative use. One novel solution to enable IBD benchmarking has been developed in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). Crohn's Colitis Care (CCCare) is a cloud-based, IBD-specific EMR, now being used in routine care documentation at 22 sites across ANZ. De-identified data feed from CCCare's clinical module into a Clinical Quality Registry, in which audit, research, and benchmarking can be performed. The pathway from conception to implementation will be presented. Lessons learnt from the ANZ benchmarking journey will be discussed and suggestions for an effective global approach to IBD data will be proposed.

Indexed as

benchmarkingqualitystandards

Identifiers

PMID39990512
PMCPMC11842908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.