Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 681

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review

Open access
Schouten, Loes M T, Hulscher, Marlies E J L, Everdingen, Jannes J E van, Huijsman, Robbert, Grol, Richard P T M·2008·BMJ

Abstract

Objectives Recent results from ‘ORAL Surveillance’ trial have raised concerns regarding the cardiovascular safety of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We further examined this safety concern in the real-world setting. Methods We created two cohorts of patients with RA initiating treatment with tofacitinib or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFI) using deidentified data from Optum Clinformatics (2012–2020), IBM MarketScan (2012–2018) and Medicare (parts A, B and D, 2012–2017) claims databases: (1) A ‘real-world evidence (RWE) cohort’ consisting of routine care patients and (2) A ‘randomised controlled trial (RCT)-duplicate cohort’ mimicking inclusion and exclusion criteria of the ORAL surveillance trial to calibrate results against the trial findings. Cox proportional hazards models with propensity score fine stratification weighting were used to estimate HR and 95% CIs for composite outcome of myocardial infarction and stroke and accounting for 76 potential confounders. Database-specific effect estimates were pooled using fixed effects models with inverse-variance weighting. Results In the RWE cohort, 102 263 patients were identified of whom 12 852 (12.6%) initiated tofacitinib. The pooled weighted HR (95% CI) comparing tofacitinib with TNFI was 1.01 (0.83 to 1.23) in RWE cohort and 1.24 (0.90 to 1.69) in RCT-duplicate cohort which aligned closely with ORAL-surveillance results (HR: 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.94). Conclusions We did not find evidence for an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes with tofacitinib in patients with RA treated in the real-world setting; however, tofacitinib was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes, although statistically non-significant, in patients with RA with cardiovascular risk factors. Trial registration number NCT04772248.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.39570.749884.be

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 681

Metadata

Authors
Schouten, L. M. T., Hulscher, M. E. J. L., Everdingen, J. J. E. V., Huijsman, R., & Grol, R. P. T. M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-06-24
Volume
336
Issue
7659
Pages
1491-1494
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1991791540
Cited by
681
References
2
FWCI
5.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.39570.749884.be
The paper
Schouten, L. M. T., Hulscher, M. E. J. L., Everdingen, J. J. E. V., Huijsman, R., & Grol, R. P. T. M. (2008). Evidence for the impact of quality improvement collaboratives: systematic review. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39570.749884.be

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.