Assessing the Quality of Reporting on Quality Improvement Initiatives in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

被引:1
|
作者
Pereira, Diego Daniel [1 ]
Cormier, Nicholas S. S. [1 ]
Market, Marisa R. R. [2 ]
Frank, Simon G. G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ottawa, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Box 213,1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada
[2] Univ Ottawa, Fac Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
关键词
ENHANCED RECOVERY; PUBLICATION GUIDELINES; SURGERY PATHWAY; HEALTH-CARE; IMPLEMENTATION; PROGRAM; FLAP; EXPERIENCE; MASTECTOMY; ALGORITHM;
D O I
10.1097/PRS.0000000000009983
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: There has been a recent increase in the number and complexity of quality improvement (QI) studies in breast reconstruction. To assist with the development of thorough QI reporting practices, with the goal of improving the transferability of these initiatives, the authors conducted a systematic review of studies describing the implementation of QI initiatives in breast reconstruction. The authors used the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 guideline to appraise the quality of reporting of these initiatives.Methods: English language articles published in Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane databases were searched. Quantitative studies evaluating the implementation of QI initiatives in breast reconstruction were included. The primary endpoint of interest in this review was the distribution of studies according to SQUIRE 2.0 criteria scores in proportions. Abstracts and full-text screening, and data extraction were completed independently and in duplicate by the review team.Results: The authors screened 1107 studies, of which 53 full texts were assessed and 35 met inclusion criteria. In our assessment, only three studies (9%) met all 18 SQUIRE 2.0 criteria. SQUIRE 2.0 criteria that were met most frequently were abstract, problem description, rationale, and analysis. The lowest SQUIRE 2.0 scores appeared in the interpretation criteria.Conclusions: Significant opportunity exists to improve QI reporting in breast reconstruction, especially in the realm of costs, strategic tradeoffs, ethical considerations, project sustainability, and potential for spread to other contexts. Improvements in these areas will help to further advance the transferability of QI initiatives in breast reconstruction.
引用
收藏
页码:552E / 562E
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Theme: Quality Improvement Initiatives
    Jaya Shankar Kaushik
    Indian Pediatrics, 2018, 55 (9) : 831 - 831
  • [32] The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery needs improvement: A systematic review
    Tan, Wei Keith
    Wigley, James
    Shantikumar, Saran
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2014, 12 (12) : 1262 - 1265
  • [33] Quality Assessment of the Literature on Quality Improvement in PICUs: A Systematic Review
    Inata, Yu
    Nakagami-Yamaguchi, Etsuko
    Ogawa, Yuko
    Hatachi, Takeshi
    Takeuchi, Muneyuki
    PEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2021, 22 (06) : 553 - 560
  • [34] Sustainable dermatology: a service review at Warwick and quality improvement initiatives
    Mann, S.
    Sebastian, N.
    Okonji, E.
    Tso, V. B. Y.
    Thind, C.
    Unter, S.
    Gee, B. C.
    Bedlow, A. J.
    Carter, J. J.
    Eykyn, H.
    Williamson, T.
    Barrass, S.
    Tso, S.
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY, 2022, 47 (03) : 584 - 587
  • [35] Improving the Quality of Quality Improvement Reporting Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 Guidelines
    Mueck, Krislynn M.
    Putnam, Luke R.
    Kao, Lillian S.
    JAMA SURGERY, 2016, 151 (04) : 311 - 312
  • [36] Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia
    Tsakiridis, Ioannis
    Arvanitaki, Alexandra
    Zintzaras, Elias
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2019, 299 (03) : 689 - 694
  • [37] Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia
    Ioannis Tsakiridis
    Alexandra Arvanitaki
    Elias Zintzaras
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2019, 299 : 689 - 694
  • [38] Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review
    Zorzela, Liliane
    Golder, Su
    Liu, Yali
    Pilkington, Karen
    Hartling, Lisa
    Joffe, Ari
    Loke, Yoon
    Vohra, Sunita
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 348
  • [39] Reporting quality in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review
    Elshafay, Abdelrahman
    Omran, Esraa Salah
    Abdelkhalek, Mariam
    El-Badry, Mohamed Omar
    Eisa, Heba Gamal
    Fala, Salma Y.
    Dang, Thao
    Ghanem, Mohammad A. T.
    Elbadawy, Maha
    Elhady, Mohamed Tamer
    Nguyen Lam Vuong
    Hirayama, Kenji
    Nguyen Tien Huy
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2019, 35 (09) : 1631 - 1641
  • [40] Shared decision making in breast cancer screening guidelines: a systematic review of their quality and reporting
    Maes-Carballo, Marta
    Moreno-Asencio, Teresa
    Martin-Diaz, Manuel
    Mignini, Luciano
    Bueno-Cavanillas, Aurora
    Saeed Khan, Khalid
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2021, 31 (04): : 873 - 883