ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Nationwide data-driven quality improvement in ultrasound medicine: insights from an indicator-based initiative in China.
Article in BMJ open quality, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are only a limited number of countries systematically tracking the quality of ultrasound at the national and institutional levels. Our study presents an example of a national, data-driven approach to ultrasound medicine quality measurement and improvement through indicators.
aimThis study aims to establish a nationwide, indicator-based framework for measuring and improving the quality of ultrasound medicine in China. By developing and applying quality indicators, we seek to systematically evaluate performance, identify areas for improvement and guide data-driven quality enhancement efforts across institutions.
methodsTo enhance ultrasound quality and improve quality management, a leadership team was established. Pertinent quality indicators were developed as evaluation metrics. Quality improvement programmes were designed following the identification of key causes of suboptimal performance. A Plan-Do-Study-Act method was applied. Nationwide sample surveys were conducted annually to collect and document the relevant quality data. 10 ultrasound quality indicators were selected and comparisons of data from 2020 to 2023 were made. χ
resultsThe ultrasound instruments quality inspection rate, the completion rate of notification of ultrasound critical findings within 10 min, the qualification rate of ultrasound reports remained and the completion rate of inpatient ultrasound examinations within 48 hours remained consistently high. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System utilisation rate of breast lesions in ultrasound reports, the concordance rate of ultrasound diagnoses, the accuracy rate of ultrasound diagnosis of breast lesions and the concordance rate of ultrasound diagnosis of ≥50% carotid stenosis all improved and showed an upward trend.
conclusionsIndicator-based data can drive nationwide measurement, improvement and monitoring of ultrasound medicine quality. The use of indicators supports sustained efforts to improve quality and safety in ultrasound services.
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.