ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Construction of a quality evaluation index system for nutrition nursing clinics based on the Donabedian model.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
Objective: To develop an evidence-based quality evaluation index system for Nutrition Nursing Clinics (NNCs) grounded in the Donabedian Structure-Process-Outcome model. Methods: A preliminary indicator system was developed through a systematic literature review, expert panel discussions, and a national survey. Utilizing the Delphi method, 17 experts participated in two rounds of consultation. Questionnaires with a 100% effective response rate in both rounds were used to collect expert opinions on the importance of indicators. Indicators were screened based on an average importance score ≥3.5 and a coefficient of variation <0.25. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was then applied to calculate the weights for the finalized indicators. Results: The expert authority coefficients (Cr) for the two consultation rounds were 0.90 and 0.89, respectively, indicating high expert credibility. The Kendall's W coefficients for all levels of indicators were statistically significant ( Conclusion: This study developed a preliminary, consensus-based quality evaluation index system for NNCs, representing a foundational step toward standardized evaluation in this specialty.
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.