The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Developing evidence-based clinical indicators: a state of the art methods primer
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe steps in developing and testing clinical indicators based on state of the art methods in previous literature and experience in the Danish National Indicator Project. ANALYSIS: The development process includes a planning phase, where the clinical area to be evaluated is chosen and the measurement team selected and organized. The planning phase is followed by a development phase where clinical indicators are prioritized and selected by the measurement team on the basis of documentation and knowledge from the scientific literature. When clinical indicators have been selected, specific measure specifications should be designed, including inclusion and exclusion criteria for the target population, description of a risk adjustment strategy, identification of data sources, description of data collection procedures, and an analytical plan for data analyses. Before clinical indicators are implemented they should be tested for reliability and validity. Preliminary tests may identify areas requiring further modifications and specifications of the indicators. CONCLUSION: Using clinical indicators for quality assessment represents an important approach to documenting the quality of care. Consumers of indicator information (clinicians, administrators, purchasers, regulators, and patients) need reliable and valid information for benchmarking, making judgments, and determining priorities, accountability and quality improvement. This underlines the fact that clinical indicators must be developed and tested with scientific rigor in a transparent process.
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
(1993) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199309303291401 · Cited by 24,667
Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine.
(1991) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-114-9-825_9 · Cited by 3,476
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
Eisenberg, J. M. (1999) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199903000-00001 · Cited by 1,369
Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement
Mainz, J. (2003) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzg081 · Cited by 1,161
Self-citationSystems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.
West, S. L., King, V., Carey, T. S., Lohr, K. N., Mckoy, N. A., Sutton, S. F., & Lux, L. J. (2002) · PubMed · Cited by 885
Brook, R. H., McGlynn, E. A., & Cleary, P. D. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199609263351311 · Cited by 769
The advantages and disadvantages of process-based measures of health care quality
Rubin, H. R. (2001) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/13.6.469 · Cited by 375
Breathnach, O. S., Freidlin, B., Conley, B., Green, M. R., Johnson, D. H., Gandara, D. R., O’Connell, M., Shepherd, F. A., & Johnson, B. E. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2001.19.6.1734 · Cited by 354
Rubin, H. R. (2001) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/13.6.489 · Cited by 247
Eccles, M., Freemantle, N., & Mason, J. M. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1232 · Cited by 127
Cited by
Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement
Mainz, J. (2003) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzg081 · Cited by 1,161
Self-citationA European Evidence-Based Guideline for the Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes
Paulweber, B., Valensi, P., Lindström, J., Lalic, N., Greaves, C., McKee, M., Kissimova-Skarbek, K., Liatis, S., Cosson, E., Szendroedi, J., et al. (2010) · Hormone and Metabolic Research · doi:10.1055/s-0029-1240928 · Cited by 469
Methods for the guideline-based development of quality indicators--a systematic review
Kötter, T., Blozik, E., & Scherer, M. (2012) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-21 · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Mainz, J.
- Venue
- International Journal for Quality in Health Care
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-12-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 90001
- Pages
- 5i-11
- ISSN
- 1353-4505 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3677
- OpenAlex
- W2104414792
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 4.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Developing evidence-based clinical indicators: a state of the art methods primer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/intqhc/mzg084
- The paper
- Mainz, J. (2003). Developing evidence-based clinical indicators: a state of the art methods primer. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzg084
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.