The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence 2.0: revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process
Open accessAbstract
Since the publication of Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 1.0) guidelines in 2008, the science of the field has advanced considerably. In this article, we describe the development of SQUIRE 2.0 and its key components. We undertook the revision between 2012 and 2015 using (1) semistructured interviews and focus groups to evaluate SQUIRE 1.0 plus feedback from an international steering group, (2) two face-to-face consensus meetings to develop interim drafts, and (3) pilot testing with authors and a public comment period. SQUIRE 2.0 emphasizes the reporting of three key components of systematic efforts to improve the quality, value, and safety of health care: the use of formal and informal theory in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement work; the context in which the work is done; and the study of the intervention(s). SQUIRE 2.0 is intended for reporting the range of methods used to improve health care, recognizing that they can be complex and multidimensional. It provides common ground to share these discoveries in the scholarly literature (www.squire-statement.org).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 · Cited by 10,548 · cited 3×
“[17] Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al.”
The Next GME Accreditation System — Rationale and Benefits
Nasca, T. J., Philibert, I., Brigham, T., & Flynn, T. C. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsr1200117 · Cited by 1,611
Quality and safety education for nurses
Cronenwett, L., Sherwood, G., Barnsteiner, J., Disch, J., Johnson, J., Mitchell, P., Sullivan, D. T., & Warren, J. (2007) · Nursing Outlook · doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2007.02.006 · Cited by 1,155
Planning and Studying Improvement in Patient Care: The Use of Theoretical Perspectives
GROL, R. P. T. M., BOSCH, M. C., HULSCHER, M. E. J. L., ECCLES, M. P., & WENSING, M. (2007) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00478.x · Cited by 943
General Competencies And Accreditation In Graduate Medical Education
Batalden, P., Leach, D., Swing, S., Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (2002) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.21.5.103 · Cited by 738
Self-citationDemystifying theory and its use in improvement
Davidoff, F., Dixon-Woods, M., Leviton, L., & Michie, S. (2015) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627 · Cited by 714 · cited 3×
“The science of the field also continues to advance through guidance on applying formal and informal theory in the development and interpretation of improvement programs [12]; stronger ways”
InfluentialSelf-citationEvidence-Based Quality Improvement: The State Of The Science
Shojania, K. G., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2005) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.138 · Cited by 691
Kaplan, H. C., Provost, L. P., Froehle, C. M., & Margolis, P. A. (2012) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000010 · Cited by 572
Goodman, D., Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Baker, G. R., Barnsteiner, J., Foster, T. C., Gali, K., Hilden, J., Horwitz, L., Kaplan, H. C., et al. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004480 · Cited by 374
Self-citationØvretveit, J. (2011) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.045955 · Cited by 340
Cited by
Association of a Frailty Screening Initiative With Postoperative Survival at 30, 180, and 365 Days
Hall, D. E., Arya, S., Schmid, K. K., Carlson, M. A., Lavedan, P., Bailey, T. L., Purviance, G., Bockman, T., Lynch, T. G., & Johanning, J. M. (2017) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4219 · Cited by 366
A clinical pathway for the management of difficult venous access
Sou, V., McManus, C., Mifflin, N., Frost, S. A., Ale, J., & Alexandrou, E. (2017) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-017-0261-z · Cited by 137
Shaw, J. G., Winget, M., Brown-Johnson, C., Seay-Morrison, T., Garvert, D. W., Levine, M., Safaeinili, N., & Mahoney, M. R. (2021) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.2714 · Cited by 27
Albright, K., & Jones, C. D. (2022) · Journal of Hospital Medicine · doi:10.1002/jhm.12806 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Surgical Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-02
- Volume
- 200
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 676-682
- ISSN
- 0022-4804 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1860281042
- Cited by
- 366
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 16.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence 2.0: revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jss.2015.09.015
- The paper
- Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence 2.0: revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. Journal of Surgical Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.09.015
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
