RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA 90407, USA.
Implement Sci. 2011 Aug 1;6:85. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-85.
The evidence base for quality improvement (QI) interventions is expanding rapidly. The diversity of the initiatives and the inconsistency in labeling these as QI interventions makes it challenging for researchers, policymakers, and QI practitioners to access the literature systematically and to identify relevant publications.
We evaluated search strategies developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and PubMed based on free text words, Medical subject headings (MeSH), QI intervention components, continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods, and combinations of the strategies. Three sets of pertinent QI intervention publications were used for validation. Two independent expert reviewers screened publications for relevance. We compared the yield, recall rate, and precision of the search strategies for the identification of QI publications and for a subset of empirical studies on effects of QI interventions.
The search yields ranged from 2,221 to 216,167 publications. Mean recall rates for reference publications ranged from 5% to 53% for strategies with yields of 50,000 publications or fewer. The 'best case' strategy, a simple text word search with high face validity ('quality' AND 'improv*' AND 'intervention*') identified 44%, 24%, and 62% of influential intervention articles selected by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) experts, a set of exemplar articles provided by members of the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) group, and a sample from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) register of studies, respectively. We applied the search strategy to a PubMed search for articles published in 10 pertinent journals in a three-year period which retrieved 183 publications. Among these, 67% were deemed relevant to QI by at least one of two independent raters. Forty percent were classified as empirical studies reporting on a QI intervention.
The presented search terms and operating characteristics can be used to guide the identification of QI intervention publications. Even with extensive iterative development, we achieved only moderate recall rates of reference publications. Consensus development on QI reporting and initiatives to develop QI-relevant MeSH terms are urgently needed.
质量改进(QI)干预措施的证据基础正在迅速扩大。这些举措的多样性以及将这些举措标记为 QI 干预措施的不一致性,使得研究人员、政策制定者和 QI 实践者难以系统地获取文献并确定相关出版物。
我们评估了基于自由文本词、医学主题词(MeSH)、QI 干预措施组成部分、持续质量改进(CQI)方法以及这些策略组合的 MEDLINE(Ovid)和 PubMed 开发的搜索策略。使用三组相关的 QI 干预措施出版物进行验证。两名独立的专家审查员筛选了出版物的相关性。我们比较了搜索策略在识别 QI 出版物以及在 QI 干预措施效果的实证研究子集中的产量、召回率和精度。
搜索结果范围从 2,221 到 216,167 篇出版物。对于产量为 50,000 篇或更少的策略,参考出版物的平均召回率范围为 5%至 53%。“最佳情况”策略是一种具有高表面效度的简单文本词搜索(“质量”和“改进”和“干预”),分别确定了 AHRQ 专家选择的有影响力的干预文章的 44%、24%和 62%,SQUIRE 组成员提供的一组范例文章,以及 Cochrane 有效实践和组织护理组(EPOC)研究登记处的样本。我们将搜索策略应用于 PubMed 在三年内对 10 种相关期刊发表的文章的搜索,检索到 183 篇出版物。其中,至少有一名独立评分者认为 67%与 QI 相关。40%被归类为报告 QI 干预措施的实证研究。
提出的搜索词和操作特征可用于指导 QI 干预措施出版物的识别。即使进行了广泛的迭代开发,我们也仅实现了参考出版物的中等召回率。迫切需要就 QI 报告制定共识并开展制定 QI 相关 MeSH 术语的举措。