Cargando…
Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey
INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement (QI) is a growing field of inquiry in healthcare, but the reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology remains unclear. We conducted a systematic survey of the literature to assess the reporting quality of QI studies and factors associated with reporting quality....
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8204179/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34127453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001273 |
_version_ | 1783708303330639872 |
---|---|
author | Hu, Zheng Jing Fusch, Gerhard Hu, Catherine Wang, Jie Yi el Helou, Zoe Hassan, Muhammad Taaha Mbuagbaw, Lawrence el Helou, Salhab Thabane, Lehana |
author_facet | Hu, Zheng Jing Fusch, Gerhard Hu, Catherine Wang, Jie Yi el Helou, Zoe Hassan, Muhammad Taaha Mbuagbaw, Lawrence el Helou, Salhab Thabane, Lehana |
author_sort | Hu, Zheng Jing |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement (QI) is a growing field of inquiry in healthcare, but the reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology remains unclear. We conducted a systematic survey of the literature to assess the reporting quality of QI studies and factors associated with reporting quality. METHODS: We searched Medline for publications of QI studies from 2016 to 16 April 2020. Pairs of reviewers independently screened citations and assessed reporting quality using a 31-item modified Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence, 2nd edition (SQUIRE 2.0) checklist. We reported the number (percentage) of studies that reported each item and their corresponding 95% CIs. We used Poisson regression to explore factors associated with reporting quality, namely, journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0, declaration of funding sources, year of publication and number of authors. The results were reported as incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% CI. RESULTS: Of 1921 citations, 336 were eligible; among them, we randomly selected 100 articles to assess reporting quality. The mean (standard deviation) number of SQUIRE 2.0 items adhered to was 22.0 (4.5). Percentage of articles reporting each item varied from 26% to 100%. Journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0 (IRR=1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21, p=0.015), declaration of funding sources and increasing number of authors were significantly associated with better reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology is inadequate. Endorsing the SQUIRE 2.0 guideline is a step that journals can implement to enhance the completeness of reporting. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8204179 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82041792021-06-28 Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey Hu, Zheng Jing Fusch, Gerhard Hu, Catherine Wang, Jie Yi el Helou, Zoe Hassan, Muhammad Taaha Mbuagbaw, Lawrence el Helou, Salhab Thabane, Lehana BMJ Open Qual Research & Reporting Methodology INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement (QI) is a growing field of inquiry in healthcare, but the reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology remains unclear. We conducted a systematic survey of the literature to assess the reporting quality of QI studies and factors associated with reporting quality. METHODS: We searched Medline for publications of QI studies from 2016 to 16 April 2020. Pairs of reviewers independently screened citations and assessed reporting quality using a 31-item modified Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence, 2nd edition (SQUIRE 2.0) checklist. We reported the number (percentage) of studies that reported each item and their corresponding 95% CIs. We used Poisson regression to explore factors associated with reporting quality, namely, journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0, declaration of funding sources, year of publication and number of authors. The results were reported as incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% CI. RESULTS: Of 1921 citations, 336 were eligible; among them, we randomly selected 100 articles to assess reporting quality. The mean (standard deviation) number of SQUIRE 2.0 items adhered to was 22.0 (4.5). Percentage of articles reporting each item varied from 26% to 100%. Journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0 (IRR=1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21, p=0.015), declaration of funding sources and increasing number of authors were significantly associated with better reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology is inadequate. Endorsing the SQUIRE 2.0 guideline is a step that journals can implement to enhance the completeness of reporting. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8204179/ /pubmed/34127453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001273 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research & Reporting Methodology Hu, Zheng Jing Fusch, Gerhard Hu, Catherine Wang, Jie Yi el Helou, Zoe Hassan, Muhammad Taaha Mbuagbaw, Lawrence el Helou, Salhab Thabane, Lehana Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey |
title | Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey |
title_full | Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey |
title_fullStr | Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey |
title_full_unstemmed | Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey |
title_short | Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey |
title_sort | completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey |
topic | Research & Reporting Methodology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8204179/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34127453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2020-001273 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huzhengjing completenessofreportingofqualityimprovementstudiesinneonatologyisinadequateasystematicliteraturesurvey AT fuschgerhard completenessofreportingofqualityimprovementstudiesinneonatologyisinadequateasystematicliteraturesurvey AT hucatherine completenessofreportingofqualityimprovementstudiesinneonatologyisinadequateasystematicliteraturesurvey AT wangjieyi completenessofreportingofqualityimprovementstudiesinneonatologyisinadequateasystematicliteraturesurvey AT elhelouzoe completenessofreportingofqualityimprovementstudiesinneonatologyisinadequateasystematicliteraturesurvey AT hassanmuhammadtaaha completenessofreportingofqualityimprovementstudiesinneonatologyisinadequateasystematicliteraturesurvey AT mbuagbawlawrence completenessofreportingofqualityimprovementstudiesinneonatologyisinadequateasystematicliteraturesurvey AT elhelousalhab completenessofreportingofqualityimprovementstudiesinneonatologyisinadequateasystematicliteraturesurvey AT thabanelehana completenessofreportingofqualityimprovementstudiesinneonatologyisinadequateasystematicliteraturesurvey |