Trends in Health Quality–Related Publications Over the Past Three Decades: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality assessment in health care is a process of planned activities with the ultimate goal of achieving a continuous improvement of medical care through the evaluation of structure, process, and outcome measures. Physicians and health care specialists involved with quality issues are faced with an enormous and nearly always increasing amount of literature to read and integrate. Nevertheless, the novelty and quality of these articles (in terms of evidence-based medicine) has not been systematically assessed and described. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that the number of high-evidence journal articles (according to the pyramid of evidence), such as randomized control trials, systematic reviews, and ultimately, practice guidelines, increases over time, relative to lower-evidence journal articles, such as editorials, reviews, and letters to the editors. METHODS: We used PubMed database to retrieve relevant articles published during the 31-year period between January 1, 1989, and December 31, 2021. The search was conducted in April 2022. We used the keywords "quality care," "quality management," "quality indicators," and "quality improvement" and limited the search fields to title and abstract in order to limit our search results to articles nearly exclusively related to health care quality. RESULTS: During this 31-year evaluation period, there was a significant cubic increase in the total number of publications, reviews, clinical trials (peaking in 2017, with a sharp decline until 2021), controlled trials (peaking in 2016, with a sharp drop until 2021), randomized controlled trials (peaking in 2017, with a sharp drop until 2021), systematic reviews (nearly nonexistent in the 1980s through 1990s to a peak of 222 in 2021), and meta-analyses (from nearly none in the 1980s through 1990s to a peak of approximately 40 per year in 2020). There was a linear increase in practice guidelines from none during 1989-1991 to approximately 25 per year during 2019-2021, including a cubic increase in editorials, peaking in 2021 at 125 per year, and in letters to the editor, peaking at 50-78 per year in the last 4 years (ie, 2018-2021). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 31 years, the field of quality in health care has seen a significant yearly increase of published original studies with a relative stagnation since 2015. We suggest that contributors to this dynamic field of research should focus on producing more evidence-based publications and guidelines.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.748 | 0.578 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.187 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".