Quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes

被引:13
|
作者
Ivers, Noah M. [1 ]
Tricco, Andrea C. [2 ]
Taljaard, Monica [3 ]
Halperin, Ilana [4 ]
Turner, Lucy [5 ]
Moher, David [5 ]
Grimshaw, Jeremy M. [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Toronto, Dept Family & Community Med, Womens Coll Hosp, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
[2] St Michaels Hosp, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Inst, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada
[3] Univ Ottawa, Dept Epidemiol & Community Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Dept Med, Div Endocrinol & Metab, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
[5] Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2013年 / 3卷 / 04期
关键词
DIABETES & ENDOCRINOLOGY; STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS; CONSORT STATEMENT; IMPACT; RISK; BIAS; STRATEGIES; GUIDELINES; EXTENSION; BEHAVIOR; TOOL;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002727
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective Despite the increasing numbers of published trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions in diabetes, little is known about the risk of bias in this literature. Design Secondary analysis of a systematic review. Data sources Medline, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) database (from inception to July 2010) and references of included studies. Eligibility criteria Randomised trials assessing 11 predefined QI strategies or financial incentives targeting health systems, healthcare professionals or patients to improve the management of adult outpatients with diabetes. Analysis Risk of bias (low, unclear or high) was assessed for the 142 trials in the review across nine domains using the EPOC version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We used Cochran-Armitage tests for trends to evaluate the improvement over time. Results There was no significant improvement over time in any of the risk of bias domains. Attrition bias (loss to follow-up) was the most common source of bias, with 24 trials (17%) having high risk of bias due to incomplete outcome data. Overall, 69 trials (49%) had at least one domain with high risk of bias. Inadequate reporting frequently hampered the risk of bias assessment: allocation sequence was unclear in 82 trials (58%) and allocation concealment was unclear in 78 trials (55%). There were significant reductions neither in the proportions of studies at high risk of bias over time nor in the adequacy of reporting of risk of bias domains. Conclusions Nearly half of the included QI trials in this review were judged to have high risk of bias. Such trials have serious limitations that put the findings in question and therefore inhibit evidence-based QI. There is a need to limit the potential for bias when conducting QI trials and improve the quality of reporting of QI trials so that stakeholders have adequate evidence for implementation.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Systematic Review of Quality Improvement Interventions in Burn Care
    Rogers, Alan D.
    Wallace, David L.
    Cartotto, Robert
    JOURNAL OF BURN CARE & RESEARCH, 2021, 42 (04): : 810 - 816
  • [2] Designing Interventions to Elevate the Quality of IBD Care: A Systematic Review of Quality Improvement Initiatives
    Eric, John
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2020, 115 : S12 - S13
  • [3] Audit and feedback, and continuous quality improvement strategies to improve the quality of care for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review of literature
    Vecchi, Simona
    Agabiti, Nera
    Mitrova, Suzana
    Cacciani, Laura
    Amato, Laura
    Davoli, Marina
    Bargagli, Anna Maria
    EPIDEMIOLOGIA & PREVENZIONE, 2016, 40 (3-4): : 215 - 223
  • [4] Interventions using pediatric diabetes registry data for quality improvement: A systematic review
    Burry, Erica
    Ivers, Noah
    Mahmud, Farid H.
    Shulman, Rayzel
    PEDIATRIC DIABETES, 2018, 19 (07) : 1249 - 1256
  • [5] Quality assurance in surgical trials: An improvement is needed
    Lecuru, Fabrice
    Osdoit, Marie
    Balaya, Vincent
    Faron, Enora Laas
    Feron, Jean Guillaume
    Laki, Fatima
    Fourchotte, Virginie
    Reyal, Fabien
    Asselain, Bernard
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2020, 157 (03) : 570 - 571
  • [6] Room for improvement: a systematic review of the quality of evaluations of interventions to improve hospital antibiotic prescribing
    Ramsay, C
    Brown, E
    Hartman, G
    Davey, P
    JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2003, 52 (05) : 764 - 771
  • [7] Economic Evaluation of Quality Improvement Interventions Designed to Improve Glycemic Control in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Weighted Regression Analysis
    Nuckols, Teryl K.
    Keeler, Emmett
    Anderson, Laura J.
    Green, Jonas
    Morton, Sally C.
    Doyle, Brian J.
    Shetty, Kanaka
    Arifkhanova, Aziza
    Booth, Marika
    Shanman, Roberta
    Shekelle, Paul
    DIABETES CARE, 2018, 41 (05) : 985 - 993
  • [8] Quality improvement research: are randomised trials necessary?
    Neuhauser, D.
    Diaz, M.
    QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2007, 16 (01): : 77 - 80
  • [9] Practice-level quality improvement interventions in primary care: a review of systematic reviews
    Irwin, Ryan
    Stokes, Tim
    Marshall, Tom
    PRIMARY HEALTH CARE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, 2015, 16 (06): : 556 - 577
  • [10] Quality improvement interventions to prevent unplanned extubations in pediatric critical care: a systematic review
    Krista Wollny
    Sara Cui
    Deborah McNeil
    Karen Benzies
    Simon J. Parsons
    Tolulope Sajobi
    Amy Metcalfe
    Systematic Reviews, 11