Cargando…

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

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 o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ivers, Noah M, Tricco, Andrea C, Taljaard, Monica, Halperin, Ilana, Turner, Lucy, Moher, David, Grimshaw, Jeremy M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23576000
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002727
_version_ 1782268027708899328
author Ivers, Noah M
Tricco, Andrea C
Taljaard, Monica
Halperin, Ilana
Turner, Lucy
Moher, David
Grimshaw, Jeremy M
author_facet Ivers, Noah M
Tricco, Andrea C
Taljaard, Monica
Halperin, Ilana
Turner, Lucy
Moher, David
Grimshaw, Jeremy M
author_sort Ivers, Noah M
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3641459
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36414592013-05-07 Quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes Ivers, Noah M Tricco, Andrea C Taljaard, Monica Halperin, Ilana Turner, Lucy Moher, David Grimshaw, Jeremy M BMJ Open Health Services Research 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2013-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3641459/ /pubmed/23576000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002727 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Ivers, Noah M
Tricco, Andrea C
Taljaard, Monica
Halperin, Ilana
Turner, Lucy
Moher, David
Grimshaw, Jeremy M
Quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes
title Quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes
title_full Quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes
title_fullStr Quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes
title_full_unstemmed Quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes
title_short Quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes
title_sort quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3641459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23576000
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002727
work_keys_str_mv AT iversnoahm qualityimprovementneededinqualityimprovementrandomisedtrialssystematicreviewofinterventionstoimprovecareindiabetes
AT triccoandreac qualityimprovementneededinqualityimprovementrandomisedtrialssystematicreviewofinterventionstoimprovecareindiabetes
AT taljaardmonica qualityimprovementneededinqualityimprovementrandomisedtrialssystematicreviewofinterventionstoimprovecareindiabetes
AT halperinilana qualityimprovementneededinqualityimprovementrandomisedtrialssystematicreviewofinterventionstoimprovecareindiabetes
AT turnerlucy qualityimprovementneededinqualityimprovementrandomisedtrialssystematicreviewofinterventionstoimprovecareindiabetes
AT moherdavid qualityimprovementneededinqualityimprovementrandomisedtrialssystematicreviewofinterventionstoimprovecareindiabetes
AT grimshawjeremym qualityimprovementneededinqualityimprovementrandomisedtrialssystematicreviewofinterventionstoimprovecareindiabetes