ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
The impact of best practice meetings on clinical outcomes in surgical and oncological care: a scoping review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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.
- Advancing learning health care systems with best practice meetings: a mixed-methods study with insights from the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Best practice meetings (BPMs) serve as collaborative forums where peer clinicians systematically review inter-institutional data, including treatment characteristics, clinical processes, and survival outcomes. The goal is to identify inter-hospital variation and facilitate mutual learning to improve the quality of care. Despite centralization of surgical and oncological care and implementation of volume thresholds, inter-hospital outcome variation persists. Additional instruments, such as BPMs, are necessary to help drive quality improvement (QI), but the effectiveness remains uncertain. This scoping review aims to evaluate the effect of BPMs on clinical outcomes. Methods: A scoping review was conducted according to the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for articles published before January 1st, 2026. Eligible studies described meetings involving surgical or oncological healthcare professionals (HCPs) from ≥3 centers, with comparison of hospital data, and discussion of inter-hospital variation in outcomes. Reviews were excluded. Results: A total of 2,208 articles were identified through the search, of which 27 were included. Two articles described the structure of BPMs. The remaining articles reported formulated best practices or evaluated the effect on clinical outcomes. Positive trends were observed in clinical processes (83.3%), morbidity (29.2%), and/or mortality rates (8.3%). A statistically significant improvement in at least one quality indicator following BPMs, either alone or within broader QI initiatives, was observed in 87.5% of the included outcome studies. Patient and participant experience had a high satisfaction rate. In 8 out of 27 articles, data were compared with a control group, and in 14 out of 27 articles, no control group was included. Conclusions: Most included articles reported predominantly positive effects following BPMs. However, the level of evidence is low (Level 4) due to risk of bias and the study designs of the articles; the majority were uncontrolled time-series, making them susceptible to secular trends. In the future, high-quality studies, e.g., with a stepped-wedge design, are needed to establish a causal relationship between BPMs and improved clinical 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.