Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify and describe hospital quality indicators, classifying them according to Donabedian’s structure, process and outcome model and in specific domains (quality, safety, infection and mortality) in two care divisions: inpatient and emergency services. Design/methodology/approach A systematic review identified hospital clinical indicators. Two independent investigators evaluated 70 articles/documents located in electronic databases and nine documents from the grey literature, 35 were included in the systematic review. Findings In total, 248 hospital-based indicators were classified as infection, safety, quality and mortality domains. Only 10.2 percent were identified in more than one article/document and 47 percent showed how they were calculated/obtained. Although there are scientific papers on developing, validating and hospital indicator assessment, most indicators were obtained from technical reports, government publications or health professional associations. Research limitations/implications This review identified several hospital structure, process and outcome quality indicators, which are used by different national and international groups in both research and clinical practice. Comparing performance between healthcare organizations was difficult. Common clinical care standard indicators used by different networks, programs and institutions are essential to hospital quality benchmarking. Originality/value To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first systematic review to identify and describe hospital quality indicators after a comprehensive search in MEDLINE/PubMed, etc., and the grey literature, aiming to identify as many indicators as possible. Few studies evaluate the indicators, and most are found only in the grey literature, and have been published mostly by government agencies. Documents published in scientific journals usually refer to a specific indicator or to constructing an indicator. However, indicators most commonly found are not supported by reliability or validity studies.
BackgroundThere is no consensus in the literature regarding the effectiveness of lifestyle modification interventions, including recommendations about specific diet or exercise program for patients with breast cancer. Diet interventions and regular physical activity may reduce the risk of breast cancer and its recurrence. The primary aim of our study is to evaluate the effects of different lifestyle modification interventions (diet and physical activity) in the survival of patients with stages I to III breast cancer after treatment.Methods/designThis review will be conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention and will be reported following the PRISMA statement recommendations. CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases will be searched for peer-reviewed literature. Randomized controlled trials of diet, exercise, or both, compared with usual care, after treatment of breast cancer stage I to III will be included in the systematic review. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts of studies for potential eligibility. Data will be combined using random-effect meta-analysis models with restricted maximum-likelihood as variance estimator, and will be presented as relative risk or standardized mean difference with 95% CI. The quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and summary of findings tables will be presented for patient important outcomes.DiscussionOur study may improve the current understanding of the role that lifestyle-modifiable factors can play in saving or prolonging the lives of women who have been treated for breast cancer, and also on modifying their quality of life.Systematic review registrationThe review has been registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42014008743).
Previous meta-analyses suggested that acute myeloid leukaemia induction regimens containing idarubicin (IDA) or high-dose daunorubicin (HDD) induce higher rates of complete remission (CR) than conventional-dose daunorubicin (CDD), with a possible benefit in overall survival. However, robust comparisons between these regimens are still lacking. We conducted a mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis regarding these three regimens. Mixed treatment comparison is a statistical method of data summarization that aggregates data from both direct and indirect effect estimates. Literature search strategy included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scielo and LILACS, from inception until August 2013 and resulted in the inclusion of 17 trials enrolling 7258 adult patients. HDD [relative risk (RR) 1.13; 95% credible interval (CrI) 1.02-1.26] and IDA (RR 1.13; 95% CrI 1.05-1.23) showed higher CR rates than CDD. IDA also led to lower long-term overall mortality rates when compared with CDD (RR 0.93, 95% CrI 0.86-0.99), whereas HDD and CDD were no different (RR 0.94, 95% CrI 0.85-1.02). HDD and IDA comparison did not reach statistically significant differences in CR (RR 1.00; 95% CrI 0.89-1.11) and in long-term mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CrI 0.91-1.11). IDA and HDD are consistently superior to CDD in inducing CR, and IDA was associated with lower long-term mortality. On the basis of these findings, we recommend incorporation of IDA and HDD instead of the traditional CDD as standard treatments for acute myeloid leukaemia induction. The lack of HDD benefit on mortality, when compared with CDD in this study, should be cautiously addressed, because it may have been susceptible to underestimation because of statistical power limitations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.