ArticleBMJ quality & safety2026
Welcome to the jungle: collection and evaluation of quality indicators with the QUALICATOR instrument.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid growth in quality indicators (QIs) has increased complexity in selecting those that are effective for monitoring provider quality and patient outcomes. Existing selection methodologies are often insufficiently transparent or standardised and influenced by subjective opinions. To develop an instrument for evidence-based collection and evaluation of QIs that are suitable for quality monitoring, and which can be applied to various healthcare areas (HCAs; defined by care setting). The instrument was developed with HCA-specific experts, who provided feedback on its components and piloted its use in the Swiss context. We conducted a literature search with snowballing to identify prioritisation criteria and weighted these using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). We developed a template to facilitate data collection and the QI evaluation. The final QUALICATOR instrument consists of five steps: (1) definition of search scope; (2) utilisation of 12 prioritisation criteria across four dimensions (relevance, scientific soundness, usability, feasibility); (3) application of a data collection template objectifying the prioritisation criteria; (4) preselection via knockout criteria and (5) final prioritisation via weighting multicriteria decision analysis. Final criteria weights derived via the AHP varied substantially across HCAs (eg, relevance: 19.16%-57.10%; scientific soundness: 5.50%-39.50%; usability: 13.17%-33.75%; feasibility: 11.78%-45.57%), reflecting HCA-specific priorities. A web-based prototype is available to support a user-friendly application. This QUALICATOR instrument provides a transparent, scalable approach to navigate through a growing body of QIs with further validation needed. It provides a methodological framework and proof of concept, rather than a ready-to-use solution. It shows policymakers, providers and payers a path to make informed decisions about which QIs to prioritise, monitor, invest in and act on.
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.