ArticleBMJ open2025
Rapid cycle, randomised testing of precision feedback to improve engagement with a process measure dashboard amongst urologists: study protocol for a hybrid trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06465667 (Improving Engagement With a Process Measure Dashboard Through Precision Feedback), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Improving Engagement With a Process Measure Dashboard Through Precision Feedback
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods used to design audit and feedback interventions to change clinical practice: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRapid-cycle randomised testing holds high potential to enhance quality improvement practice but remains under-utilised because it requires significant resource commitment. However, infrastructure for learning networks, such as collaborative quality initiatives and large-scale quality improvement consortia, holds potential to support rapid-cycle testing at low cost and with minimal effort. For example, rapid-cycle randomised testing could be used to optimise 'precision feedback', which prioritises highly motivating tailored content to improve engagement with audit and feedback. We combined these concepts (rapid cycle, randomised testing and precision feedback) with a low-resource emphasis in conceiving this trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A stepped wedge randomised controlled trial will deliver an intervention consisting of precision feedback and modifications to audit and feedback communication to 100 urologists performing ureteroscopy within the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) and will be compared with a control consisting of standard 'one-size-fits-all' audit and feedback. The study's primary endpoint is online dashboard engagement, measured as the clickthrough rate through the tracking of embedded links in emails. The stent rate following pre-stented ureteroscopy will also be measured. The primary hypothesis is that precision feedback will increase engagement with an audit and feedback dashboard and decrease rates of stenting following pre-stented ureteroscopy. Endpoints will be analysed by linear modelling accounting for repeated measures within individuals, exploring the primary hypothesis through a main effect by the study arm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics and regulatory approval have been obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan (HUM#00248876). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT06465667. Registered 6/20/2024. <https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06465667>.
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.