Lewney Jonathan
Associate Editor, BDJ Open, London, UK.
Evid Based Dent. 2019 Sep;20(3):79-80. doi: 10.1038/s41432-019-0048-z.
Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS were searched. Reference lists of the included publications were screened to identify other potentially relevant documents.Study selection Articles published from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2017. There was no language restriction for full-text articles as long as they had a title, abstract and description of the quality measures in English. Publications that either described the development process or described the clinimetric properties of oral healthcare quality measures for general dental care were included. Publications were only included if numerators and denominators of the quality measures were defined or could be directly derived. Editorials, randomised controlled trials, conference abstracts and letters to the editor were excluded.Data extraction and synthesis Two researchers independently screened the titles and abstracts. Information included study purpose, the country of origin, methods used to develop measures and stakeholder involvement. The data considered included the number of quality measures developed, the description, numerators and denominators of the measures and the type of quality measure as described by Donabedian ie process, structure or outcome measure. The Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument 2.0 was then used to appraise the scientific soundness and applicability of the measuresResults Twenty-four publications were included yielding 215 quality measures. AIRE scores ranged from 38 to 78 out of 80 possible points. The majority of measures (n = 71) referred to treatment and preventive services. Comparably, few measures referred to the domain patient safety (n = 3). The development process of measures often exhibited a lack of involvement of patients and dental professionals. Few projects reported on the validity (n = 2) and reliability (n = 3) of the measures. Four projects piloted the measures for implementation in practice.Conclusions Provides an overview of existing quality measures in oral healthcare. Potential opportunities include the piloting and testing of quality measures and transparent data reporting on the quality of oral healthcare.
数据来源 检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE和LILACS。对纳入出版物的参考文献列表进行筛选，以识别其他可能相关的文献。
研究选择 发表于2002年1月1日至2017年12月31日的文章。全文文章无语言限制，只要其标题、摘要以及质量指标描述为英文即可。纳入描述一般牙科护理口腔保健质量指标的开发过程或临床计量学特性的出版物。仅当质量指标的分子和分母已定义或可直接推导时才纳入出版物。排除社论、随机对照试验、会议摘要和给编辑的信。
数据提取与综合 两名研究人员独立筛选标题和摘要。信息包括研究目的、原产国、开发指标所使用的方法以及利益相关者的参与情况。所考虑的数据包括开发的质量指标数量、指标的描述、分子和分母以及Donabedian所描述的质量指标类型，即过程、结构或结果指标。然后使用研究与评估指标评估（AIRE）工具2.0评估指标的科学合理性和适用性。
结果 纳入24篇出版物，产生215个质量指标。AIRE评分在80分满分中从38分到78分不等。大多数指标（n = 71）涉及治疗和预防服务。相比之下，涉及患者安全领域的指标较少（n = 3）。指标的开发过程往往缺乏患者和牙科专业人员的参与。很少有项目报告指标的有效性（n = 2）和可靠性（n = 3）。四个项目对指标进行了实践实施试点。
结论 概述了口腔保健中现有的质量指标。潜在机会包括质量指标的试点和测试以及关于口腔保健质量的透明数据报告。
