Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality & Safety in Health Care logoLink to Quality & Safety in Health Care
. 2005 Oct;14(5):319–325. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2005.014787

Toward stronger evidence on quality improvement. Draft publication guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project

F Davidoff 1, P Batalden 1
PMCID: PMC1744070  PMID: 16195563

Abstract



 In contrast with the primary goals of science, which are to discover and disseminate new knowledge, the primary goal of improvement is to change performance. Unfortunately, scholarly accounts of the methods, experiences, and results of most medical quality improvement work are not published, either in print or electronic form. In our view this failure to publish is a serious deficiency: it limits the available evidence on efficacy, prevents critical scrutiny, deprives staff of the opportunity and incentive to clarify thinking, slows dissemination of established improvements, inhibits discovery of innovations, and compromises the ethical obligation to return valuable information to the public.The reasons for this failure are many: competing service responsibilities of and lack of academic rewards for improvement staff; editors' and peer reviewers' unfamiliarity with improvement goals and methods; and lack of publication guidelines that are appropriate for rigorous, scholarly improvement work. We propose here a draft set of guidelines designed to help with writing, reviewing, editing, interpreting, and using such reports. We envisage this draft as the starting point for collaborative development of more definitive guidelines. We suggest that medical quality improvement will not reach its full potential unless accurate and transparent reports of improvement work are published frequently and widely.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (87.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alemi F., Safaie F. K., Neuhauser D. A survey of 92 quality improvement projects. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2001 Nov;27(11):619–632. doi: 10.1016/s1070-3241(01)27053-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Altman D. G., Schulz K. F., Moher D., Egger M., Davidoff F., Elbourne D., Gøtzsche P. C., Lang T., CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Apr 17;134(8):663–694. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bossuyt Patrick M., Reitsma Johannes B., Bruns David E., Gatsonis Constantine A., Glasziou Paul P., Irwig Les M., Lijmer Jeroen G., Moher David, Rennie Drummond, de Vet Henrica C. W. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Jan 7;138(1):40–44. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1405–1408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cook D. J., Mulrow C. D., Haynes R. B. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Mar 1;126(5):376–380. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Des Jarlais Don C., Lyles Cynthia, Crepaz Nicole, TREND Group Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004 Mar;94(3):361–366. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.3.361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Devereaux P. J., Manns Braden J., Ghali William A., Quan Hude, Guyatt Gordon H. The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Control Clin Trials. 2002 Aug;23(4):380–388. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(02)00214-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Glasziou Paul, Chalmers Iain. Ethics review roulette: what can we learn? BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):121–122. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7432.121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Goodman S. N. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: The P value fallacy. Ann Intern Med. 1999 Jun 15;130(12):995–1004. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-12-199906150-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Goodman S. N. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 2: The Bayes factor. Ann Intern Med. 1999 Jun 15;130(12):1005–1013. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-12-199906150-00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Greenhalgh Trisha, Robert Glenn, Macfarlane Fraser, Bate Paul, Kyriakidou Olivia. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Harvey G., Wensing M. Methods for evaluation of small scale quality improvement projects. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Jun;12(3):210–214. doi: 10.1136/qhc.12.3.210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Larson Elaine, Bratts Tiffany, Zwanziger Jack, Stone Patricia. A survey of IRB process in 68 U.S. hospitals. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2004;36(3):260–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2004.04047.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Lynn J. When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Feb;13(1):67–70. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2002.002436. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Mittman Brian S. Creating the evidence base for quality improvement collaboratives. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Jun 1;140(11):897–901. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-11-200406010-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Moher D., Cook D. J., Eastwood S., Olkin I., Rennie D., Stroup D. F. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999 Nov 27;354(9193):1896–1900. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Moher D., Schulz K. F., Altman D. G., CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Apr 17;134(8):657–662. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Moss F., Thompson R. A new structure for quality improvement reports. Qual Health Care. 1999 Jun;8(2):76–76. doi: 10.1136/qshc.8.2.76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. O'Toole Thomas P., Aaron Kaytura Felix, Chin Marshall H., Horowitz Carol, Tyson Frederick. Community-based participatory research: opportunities, challenges, and the need for a common language. J Gen Intern Med. 2003 Jul;18(7):592–594. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.30416.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Purcell G. P., Donovan S. L., Davidoff F. Changes to manuscripts during the editorial process: characterizing the evolution of a clinical paper. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):227–228. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Shiffman Richard N., Shekelle Paul, Overhage J. Marc, Slutsky Jean, Grimshaw Jeremy, Deshpande Aniruddha M. Standardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Sep 16;139(6):493–498. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-139-6-200309160-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Siegel J. E., Weinstein M. C., Russell L. B., Gold M. R. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996 Oct 23;276(16):1339–1341. doi: 10.1001/jama.276.16.1339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sim I., Owens D. K., Lavori P. W., Rennels G. D. Electronic trial banks: a complementary method for reporting randomized trials. Med Decis Making. 2000 Oct-Dec;20(4):440–450. doi: 10.1177/0272989X0002000408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Stroup D. F., Berlin J. A., Morton S. C., Olkin I., Williamson G. D., Rennie D., Moher D., Becker B. J., Sipe T. A., Thacker S. B. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008–2012. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality & safety in health care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES