ArticleBMJ open2025
Construction of a quality evaluation indicator system for extended care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Development of a Nursing Quality Evaluation Indicator System for Lung Cancer in Traditional Chinese Medicine Based on the Donabedian Model: A Delphi Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to construct a quality evaluation indicator system for extended care in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), provide beneficial references for quality evaluation and practice standardisation of extended care.
designThis study was conducted from April to November 2023. Based on the three-dimensional quality structure model of 'structure-process-result', we used literature review and Delphi method to form the quality evaluation indicator system for extended care in patients with COPD and determined the weight of each indicator by analytic hierarchy process (AHP).
settingZhengzhou Central Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University and School of Nursing and Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
participants20 experts from different universities and hospitals in China participated in the study. They all had profound attainments in clinical treatment, nursing and extended care of COPD. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Effective questionnaire response rate, coefficient of expert authority, arithmetic mean, proportion of maximum score, Kendall harmony coefficient, scores of importance, variation coefficient and weight were used to evaluate the quality evaluation indicator system for extended care.
resultsIn the two rounds of Delphi expert consultation, the effective questionnaire response rates were both 100%. The coefficients of expert authority were 0.83 and 0.89, respectively. Kendall harmony coefficients were 0.088 and 0.215, respectively. The final formed quality evaluation indicator system for extended care included 3 primary indicators, 10 secondary indicators and 40 tertiary indicators. For each indicator, the variation coefficient was 0.063-0.151 and the weight was 0.001-0.065.
conclusionThe quality evaluation indicator system for extended care based on mature theoretical basis and scientific method is scientific and reliable. And the weight of each indicator is set reasonably and accurately, which could provide a basis for quality evaluation and continuous quality improvement of extended care.
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.