The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods for the guideline-based development of quality indicators--a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Quality indicators (QIs) are used in many healthcare settings to measure, compare, and improve quality of care. For the efficient development of high-quality QIs, rigorous, approved, and evidence-based development methods are needed. Clinical practice guidelines are a suitable source to derive QIs from, but no gold standard for guideline-based QI development exists. This review aims to identify, describe, and compare methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development. METHODS: We systematically searched medical literature databases (Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL) and grey literature. Two researchers selected publications reporting methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development. In order to describe and compare methodological approaches used in these publications, we extracted detailed information on common steps of guideline-based QI development (topic selection, guideline selection, extraction of recommendations, QI selection, practice test, and implementation) to predesigned extraction tables. RESULTS: From 8,697 hits in the database search and several grey literature documents, we selected 48 relevant references. The studies were of heterogeneous type and quality. We found no randomized controlled trial or other studies comparing the ability of different methodological approaches to guideline-based development to generate high-quality QIs. The relevant publications featured a wide variety of methodological approaches to guideline-based QI development, especially regarding guideline selection and extraction of recommendations. Only a few studies reported patient involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to determine which elements of the methodological approaches identified, described, and compared in this review are best suited to constitute a gold standard for guideline-based QI development. For this research, we provide a comprehensive groundwork.
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
Evaluating the quality of medical care
DONABEDIAN, A. (2005) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x · Cited by 6,102 · cited 1×
“Increasingly, quality indicators (QIs) are employed to assess and improve the quality of care in many healthcare settings [1,3-5].”
BackgroundAgency 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
Brook, R. H., McGlynn, E. A., & Cleary, P. D. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199609263351311 · Cited by 769
A Method for the Detailed Assessment of the Appropriateness of Medical Technologies
Brook, R. H., Chassin, M. R., Fink, A., Solomon, D. H., Kosecoff, J., & Park, R. E. (1986) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462300002774 · Cited by 762
Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care
Campbell, S. M., Braspenning, J., Hutchinson, A., & Marshall, M. N. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7393.816 · Cited by 720
Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care
Campbell, S. M. (2002) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qhc.11.4.358 · Cited by 687
Medicare: A Strategy for Quality Assurance
Lohr, K. N. (1991) · Journal For Healthcare Quality · doi:10.1111/j.1945-1474.1991.tb00115.x · Cited by 629
Bonow, R. O., Bennett, S., Casey, D. E., Ganiats, T. G., Hlatky, M. A., Konstam, M. A., Lambrew, C. T., Normand, S.-L. T., Pina, I. L., Radford, M. J., et al. (2005) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.170072 · Cited by 406
Krumholz, H. M., Anderson, J. L., Brooks, N. H., Fesmire, F. M., Lambrew, C. T., Landrum, M. B., Weaver, W. D., Whyte, J., Bonow, R. O., Bennett, S. J., et al. (2006) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2005.10.020 · Cited by 362
Cited by
Feng, X., Qu, Y., Sun, K., Luo, T., & Meng, K. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066599 · Cited by 15
Niihata, K., Shimizu, S., Tsujimoto, Y., Ikenoue, T., Fukuhara, S., & Fukuma, S. (2018) · Health Science Reports · doi:10.1002/hsr2.89 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Kötter, T., Blozik, E., & Scherer, M.
- Venue
- Implementation Science
- Published
- 2012-03-21
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-21
- ISSN
- 1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2025008083
- Cited by
- 271
- References
- 61
- FWCI
- 2.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Methods for the guideline-based development of quality indicators--a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1748-5908-7-21
- The paper
- Kötter, T., Blozik, E., & Scherer, M. (2012). Methods for the guideline-based development of quality indicators--a systematic review. Implementation Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-21
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.