ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Evaluation means making CQI collaborative (E = MC
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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.
- Measuring what matters: Modern evaluation practices in clinical and translational science.Journal of clinical and translational science · 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
Abstract
The NIH's Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program has placed greater emphasis on Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) in recent years. Our institution's CTSA-supported Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR) implemented a novel CQI process in response. This manuscript shares lessons learned from our implementation, reflecting a paradigm shift from managing an "evaluation program" to creating a process whose central goal is CQI. Our objective is to share these reflections to support other CTSA hubs' efforts to successfully implement CQI programs. Key elements of our implementation included (1) establishing a shared understanding about CQI's purpose; (2) leveraging a centralized management approach while addressing barriers to implementation; and (3) creating structures that foster collaboration. The CQI framework we chose, FACE (Focus, Analyze, Change, Evaluate), enabled us not only to improve the activities of ICTR modules but also, over time, to refine the CQI process itself. Through regular convenings of module leaders, the ICTR has sought to cultivate a culture of CQI as a dynamic, participatory process that supports mutual learning and collective problem-solving.
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.