Table 3.
Critical appraisal of Methodological Quality of Quality Indicator.
| AIRE domain | Walling et al., 2023 | Rollison et al., 2022 | Lorenz et al., 2009 | Dy et al., 2010 | Campion et al., 2011 | Ahluwalia et al., 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose, relevance and organizational context | 80% | 87% | 90% | 92% | 90% | 87% |
| 1. The purpose of the indicator is described clearly | 3.5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3.5 | 4 |
| 2. The criteria for selecting the topic of the indicator are described indetail | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| 3. The organizational context of the indicator is described in detail | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3.5 |
| 4. The quality domain the indicator addresses is described indetail | 3 | 3.5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| 5. The health-care process covered by the indicator is described and defined in detail | 3.5 | 3 | 3 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3 |
| Stakeholder involvement | 79% | 58% | 62% | 79% | 67% | 50% |
| 6. The group developing the indicator includes individuals from relevant professional groups | 3.5 | 2.5 | 3 | 3.5 | 3 | 2 |
| 7. Considering the purpose of the indicator, all relevant stakeholders have been involved at some stage of the development process | 3.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 8. The indicator has been formally endorsed | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Scientific evidence | 70% | 50% | 79% | 91% | 87% | 54% |
| 9. Systematic methods were used to search for scientific evidence | 2.5 | 1 | 3.5 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
| 10. The indicator is based on recommendations from an evidence-based guideline or studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 11. The supporting evidence has been critically appraised | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3.5 | 2.5 |
| Additional evidence, formulation, usage | 80% | 59% | 68% | 77% | 83% | 81% |
| 12. The numerator and denominator are described in detail | 2.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 13. The target patient population of the indicator is defined clearly | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| 14. A strategy for risk adjustment has been considered and described | 2.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 15. The indicator measures what it is intended to measure | 3.5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3.5 | 3 |
| 16. The indicator measures accurately and consistently | 3.5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.5 | 3 |
| 17. The indicator has sufficient discriminative power | 3 | 2.5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 18. The indicator has been piloted in practice | 4 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| 19. The efforts needed for data collection have been considered | 3.5 | 2 | 2.5 | 3 | 3 | 3.5 |
| 20. Specific instructions for presenting and interpreting the indicator results are provided | 3.5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 |
AIRE, Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation.