Assessing the Quality of Reporting on Quality Improvement Initiatives in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent increase in the number and complexity of quality improvement (QI) studies in breast reconstruction. To assist with the development of thorough QI reporting practices, with the goal of improving the transferability of these initiatives, the authors conducted a systematic review of studies describing the implementation of QI initiatives in breast reconstruction. The authors used the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 guideline to appraise the quality of reporting of these initiatives. METHODS: English language articles published in Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane databases were searched. Quantitative studies evaluating the implementation of QI initiatives in breast reconstruction were included. The primary endpoint of interest in this review was the distribution of studies according to SQUIRE 2.0 criteria scores in proportions. Abstracts and full-text screening, and data extraction were completed independently and in duplicate by the review team. RESULTS: The authors screened 1107 studies, of which 53 full texts were assessed and 35 met inclusion criteria. In our assessment, only three studies (9%) met all 18 SQUIRE 2.0 criteria. SQUIRE 2.0 criteria that were met most frequently were abstract, problem description, rationale, and analysis. The lowest SQUIRE 2.0 scores appeared in the interpretation criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Significant opportunity exists to improve QI reporting in breast reconstruction, especially in the realm of costs, strategic tradeoffs, ethical considerations, project sustainability, and potential for spread to other contexts. Improvements in these areas will help to further advance the transferability of QI initiatives in breast reconstruction.

Quality of Reporting on Guideline, Protocol, or Algorithm Implementation in Adult Trauma Centers: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To appraise the quality of reporting on guideline, protocol, and algorithm implementations in adult trauma settings according to the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0). BACKGROUND: At present we do not know if published reports of guideline implementations in trauma settings are of sufficient quality to facilitate replication by other centers wishing to implement the same or similar guidelines. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Articles were identified through electronic databases and hand searching relevant trauma journals. Studies meeting inclusion criteria focused on a guideline, protocol, or algorithm that targeted adult trauma patients ≥18 years and/or trauma patient care providers, and evaluated the effectiveness of guideline, protocol, or algorithm implementation in terms of change in clinical practice or patient outcomes. Each included study was assessed in duplicate for adherence to the 18-item SQUIRE 2.0 criteria. The primary endpoint was the proportion of studies meeting at least 80% (score ≥15) of SQUIRE 2.0. RESULTS: Of 7368 screened studies, 74 met inclusion criteria. Thirty-nine percent of studies scored ≥80% on SQUIRE 2.0. Criteria that were met most frequently were abstract (93%), problem description (93%), and specific aims (89%). The lowest scores appeared in the funding (28%), context (47%), and results (54%) criteria. No study indicated using SQUIRE 2.0 as a guideline to writing the report. CONCLUSIONS: Significant opportunity exists to improve the utility of guideline implementation reports in adult trauma settings, particularly in the domains of study context and the implications of context for study outcomes.

What is the quality of reporting on guideline, protocol or algorithm implementation in adult trauma centres? Protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement (QI) is mandatory in trauma centres but there is no prescription for doing successful QI. Considerable variation in implementation strategies and inconsistent use of evidence-based protocols therefore exist across centres. The quality of reporting on these strategies may limit the transferability of successful initiatives across centres. This systematic review will assess the quality of reporting on guideline, protocol or algorithm implementation within a trauma centre in terms of the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search for English language articles published after 2010 in EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL electronic databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The database search will be supplemented by searching trial registries and grey literature online. Included studies will evaluate the effectiveness of guideline implementation in terms of change in clinical practice or improvement in patient outcomes. The primary outcome will be a global score reporting the proportion of studies respecting at least 80% of the SQUIRE 2.0 criteria and will be obtained based on the 18-items identified in the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines. Secondary outcome will be the risk of bias assessed with the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies- of Interventions tool for observational cohort studies and with the Cochrane Collaboration tool for randomised controlled trials. Meta-analyses will be conducted in randomised controlled trials to estimate the effectiveness of guideline implementation if studies are not heterogeneous. If meta-analyses are conducted, we will combine studies according to the risk of bias (low, moderate or high/unclear) in subgroup analyses. All study titles, abstracts and full-text screening will be completed independently and in duplicate by the review team members. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment will also be done independently and in duplicate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated through scientific publication and conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018084273.