ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Development of a Comprehensive Tool to Assess Rigor When Evaluating Quality Improvement Projects.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to develop a pragmatic domain-based tool to Comprehensively Assess Rigor when Evaluating Quality Improvement projects (CARE-QI) that can be used by health professionals, researchers, or academics. PATIENTS AND
methodsAn expert panel was recruited to provide consensus on the tool. The development of the CARE-QI instrument followed a three-stage methodology. Firstly, a scoping review was used to identify potential items for inclusion. Secondly, using these items, a draft version of the tool was developed by the researchers and finally a Delphi survey was initiated to reach consensus on the final items. Two rounds of surveys were required where participants rated their level of agreement with each item on a Likert scale from 1 not important to 5 very important. The final version was sent out in the third round. Participants could provide free text comments on the tool during all rounds.
resultsA total of 40 experts participated in the first round of the Delphi survey. Members consisted of international multi-disciplinary healthcare professionals including clinicians and researchers with an interest in quality improvement and evidence implementation. The final CARE-QI tool consists of 13 items within four-domains: problem and design, context, intervention and implementation, and evaluation and sustainability.
conclusionA pragmatic domains-based tool has been developed, in collaboration with experts within the field, to comprehensively assess rigor when evaluating different types of clinical quality improvement projects. Further testing will confirm validity and reliability of the items within the tool.
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.