MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122210506 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002727

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

2013· article· en· W2122210506 on OpenAlexafffund
Noah Ivers, Andrea C. Tricco, Monica Taljaard, Ilana Halperin, Lucy Turner, David Moher, Jeremy Grimshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaSt. Michael's HospitalWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of TorontoUniversity of TorontoOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionQuality managementQuality (philosophy)Alternative medicineIntensive care medicineDiabetes mellitusClinical trialMEDLINENursingInternal medicinePathologyOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.188
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.461
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1880.461
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0270.024
Bibliometrics0.0140.016
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.689
GPT teacher head0.725
Teacher spread0.036 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207