• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of qualsafetyQuality and Safety in Health CareCurrent TOCInstructions for authors
Qual Saf Health Care. Aug 2003; 12(4): 298–303.
PMCID: PMC1743751

Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes

Abstract



Systematic reviews provide the best evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions including quality improvement strategies. The methods of systematic review of individual patient randomised trials of healthcare interventions are well developed. We discuss methodological and practice issues that need to be considered when undertaking systematic reviews of quality improvement strategies including developing a review protocol, identifying and screening evidence sources, quality assessment and data abstraction, analytical methods, reporting systematic reviews, and appraising systematic reviews. This paper builds on our experiences within the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) review group.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (157K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, Grilli R, Harvey E, Oxman A, O'Brien MA. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care. 2001 Aug;39(8 Suppl 2):II2–I45. [PubMed]
  • Grimshaw Jeremy M, Eccles Martin P, Walker Anne E, Thomas Ruth E. Changing physicians' behavior: what works and thoughts on getting more things to work. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2002 Fall;22(4):237–243. [PubMed]
  • Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994 Sep 3;309(6954):597–599. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Mowatt G, Grimshaw JM, Davis DA, Mazmanian PE. Getting evidence into practice: the work of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of care Group (EPOC). J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2001 Winter;21(1):55–60. [PubMed]
  • Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Campbell M, Ramsay C. Research designs for studies evaluating the effectiveness of change and improvement strategies. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Feb;12(1):47–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Gotzsche PC. Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis. It may be crucially important for patients. BMJ. 2000 Sep 9;321(7261):585–586. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med. 1992 Jan 1;116(1):78–84. [PubMed]
  • Whiting-O'Keefe QE, Henke C, Simborg DW. Choosing the correct unit of analysis in Medical Care experiments. Med Care. 1984 Dec;22(12):1101–1114. [PubMed]
  • Rao JN, Scott AJ. A simple method for the analysis of clustered binary data. Biometrics. 1992 Jun;48(2):577–585. [PubMed]
  • Donner Allan, Klar Neil. Issues in the meta-analysis of cluster randomized trials. Stat Med. 2002 Oct 15;21(19):2971–2980. [PubMed]
  • Peto R. Why do we need systematic overviews of randomized trials? Stat Med. 1987 Apr-May;6(3):233–244. [PubMed]
  • Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ. 1994 Nov 19;309(6965):1351–1355. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles. BMJ. 1994 Sep 10;309(6955):648–651. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Quality & Safety in Health Care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...