Assessing the quality of reporting on quality improvement initiatives in plastic surgery: A systematic review

被引:0
|
作者
Pereira, D. Daniel [1 ,4 ]
Market, Marisa R. [2 ]
Bell, Stephanie A. [3 ]
Malic, Claudia C. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ottawa, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Ottawa, Fac Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] Childrens Hosp Eastern Ontario, Dept Plast Surg, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Ottawa, Div Plast & Reconstruct Surg, Box 213-1053,Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada
关键词
Systematic review; Quality improvement; Plastic surgery; Research report; ENHANCED RECOVERY PATHWAY; SAME-DAY DISCHARGE; PUBLICATION GUIDELINES; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; ERAS PROTOCOL; IMPLEMENTATION; PROGRAM; BURNS; MASTECTOMY; STANDARD;
D O I
10.1016/j.bjps.2023.01.036
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 studies in plastic surgery. To assist with the development of thorough quality improvement reporting practices, with the goal of improving the transferability of these initiatives, we conducted a systematic review of studies describing the implementation of quality improvement initiatives in plastic surgery. We used the SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) 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 quality im- provement initiatives in plastic surgery were included. The primary endpoint of interest in this review was the distribution of studies per SQUIRE 2.0 criteria scores in proportions. Abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction were completed independently and in du- plicate by the review team.Results: We screened 7046 studies, of which 103 full texts were assessed, and 50 met inclusion criteria. In our assessment, only 7 studies (14%) met all 18 SQUIRE 2.0 criteria. SQUIRE 2.0 criteria that were met most frequently were abstract, problem description, rationale, and specific aims. The lowest SQUIRE 2.0 scores appeared in funding, conclusion, and interpretation criteria.Conclusions: Improvements in QI reporting in plastic surgery, especially in the realm of funding, costs, strategic trade-offs, project sustainability, and potential for spread to other contexts, will further advance the transferability of QI initiatives, which could lead to sig- nificant strides in improving patient care.(c) 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:101 / 110
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in ophthalmic surgery in 2011: a systematic review
    Khajuria, A.
    Yao, A. C.
    Camm, C. F.
    Edison, E.
    Agha, R.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2014, 101 : 28 - 28
  • [42] APPROPRIATENESS AND QUALITY OF COMPOSITE ENDPOINT USE AND REPORTING IN SPINE SURGERY A Systematic Review
    Pahuta, Markian
    Sarraj, Mohamed
    Muddaluru, Varun
    Gandhi, Pranjan
    Alshaalan, Fawaz
    Busse, Jason
    Guha, Daipayan
    Bhandari, Mohit
    JBJS REVIEWS, 2024, 12 (07)
  • [43] Statewide quality improvement initiatives and mortality after cardiac surgery
    Ghali, WA
    Ash, AS
    Hall, RE
    Moskowitz, MA
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1997, 277 (05): : 379 - 382
  • [44] Quality Improvement/Quality of Care Center Initiatives
    Gingerich, Barbara Stover
    HOME HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT AND PRACTICE, 2007, 19 (02): : 143 - 145
  • [45] Quality Improvement Initiatives in Colorectal Surgery: Value of Physician Feedback
    Waters, Joshua A.
    Francone, Todd
    Marcello, Peter W.
    Roberts, Patricia L.
    Schoetz, David J.
    Read, Thomas E.
    Stafford, Caitlin
    Ricciardi, Rocco
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2017, 60 (02) : 213 - 218
  • [46] Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality
    Pussegoda, Kusala
    Turner, Lucy
    Garritty, Chantelle
    Mayhew, Alain
    Skidmore, Becky
    Stevens, Adrienne
    Boutron, Isabelle
    Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael
    Bjerre, Lise M.
    Hrobjartsson, Asbjorn
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Moher, David
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, 6
  • [47] Assessing conflict of interest reporting and quality of clinical trials on infant formula: a systematic review
    Garcia, Guadalupe
    Perez-Rios, Monica
    Ruano-Ravina, Alberto
    Candal-Pedreira, Cristina
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2024, 169
  • [48] A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery
    Cullis, Paul Stephen
    Gudlaugsdottir, Katrin
    Andrews, James
    PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (04):
  • [49] Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality
    Kusala Pussegoda
    Lucy Turner
    Chantelle Garritty
    Alain Mayhew
    Becky Skidmore
    Adrienne Stevens
    Isabelle Boutron
    Rafael Sarkis-Onofre
    Lise M. Bjerre
    Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
    Douglas G. Altman
    David Moher
    Systematic Reviews, 6
  • [50] Assessing patient frailty in plastic surgery: A systematic review
    Gallo, Lucas
    Gallo, Matteo
    Augustine, Haley
    Leveille, Cameron
    Murphy, Jessica
    Copeland, Andrea E.
    Thoma, Achilles
    JOURNAL OF PLASTIC RECONSTRUCTIVE AND AESTHETIC SURGERY, 2022, 75 (02): : 579 - 585