ArticleBMC nursing2025
Construction and application of a quality evaluation indicator system for intravenous therapy nursing.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectTo construct a quality evaluation indicator system for intravenous therapy nursing and identify deficiencies in clinical practice.
methodsBased on the structure-process-outcome framework, we developed through literature review, semi-structured interviews, and Delphi consultation (n = 22 experts). We used the analytic hierarchy process determined indicator weights. Validation included an empirical evaluation across 30 public hospitals using TOPSIS and RSR methods.
resultsThe finalized system comprises 3 first-level, 15 s-level, and 49 third-level indicators. Expert authority coefficients were 0.903/0.898; Kendall's W = 0.321/0.329 (P < 0.01). Hospital performance: total score = 84.09 ± 8.63 (structure = 14.90 ± 2.73; process = 33.77 ± 4.39; outcome = 35.42 ± 2.95). TOPSIS-RSR analysis identified H13, H3, and H27 as top performers and H4, H1, and H20 as needing improvement.
conclusionThe validated system effectively identifies clinical weaknesses and provides actionable insights for quality enhancement. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.