ArticleANZ journal of surgery2026
Multidisciplinary Clinical Quality Indicators for Head and Neck Cancer: A Modified Delphi Study in Australia.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2026. 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.
- Multidisciplinary Clinical Quality Indicators for Head and Neck Cancer: A Modified Delphi Study in Australia.ANZ journal of surgery · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMonitoring delivery of cancer care is critical to improve outcomes in increasingly resource-constrained settings. The aim of this study was to develop a priority set of multidisciplinary quality indicators (QIs) for benchmarking and monitoring the quality of care for head and neck cancer (HNC) in Australia.
methodsFollowing a systematic literature review, a modified Delphi consensus process was undertaken with Australian health professionals and people with lived experience of HNC. Consensus was sought over three rounds. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants rated the importance of QIs on a scale of 1 (not at all important) to 7 (highly important). QIs reached consensus if they had a mean importance score ≥ 6 (out of 7) and ≥ 75% of participants rated them 6 or 7.
resultsThe systematic review identified 317 unique QIs, and 81 were chosen for presentation in Rounds 2 of the Delphi. In Round 2, 66 health professionals and 12 people with lived experience of HNC reached consensus on 48 QIs, with three reworded and one new QI added. Fifty-two QIs were presented in Round 3; 42 health professionals and 10 people with lived experience participated, reaching consensus on 24 QIs. Most of the QIs fell under the treatment domain, with commencement of curative treatment and documentation of surgical margins attaining the highest consensus.
conclusionWe developed a priority set of 24 clinically relevant QIs for HNC, which will be tested in a clinical quality registry to benchmark optimal management of HNC and 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.