[Methodological Standard for the Development of Quality Indicators within Clinical Practice Guidelines - Results of a structured consensus process]. / Methodischer Standard für die Entwicklung von Qualitätsindikatoren im Rahmen von S3-Leitlinien ­ Ergebnisse einer strukturierten Konsensfindung.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations of evidence- and formally consensus-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) represent a valuable source of quality indicators (QIs). Nevertheless, a standardized methodological procedure for developing QIs in the context of CPGs does not yet exist in Germany for all CPGs. For this reason, a methodological standard for the guideline-based development of QIs (QI Standard) was developed based on a structured consensus process involving multiple key stakeholders. METHODS: The proposed content of the QI Standard was derived from evidence, drawing upon results of reviews and qualitative studies, and considered German manuals for guideline-based QI development of two guideline programs. A multi-perspective consensus panel, broadly representing key stakeholders from the German healthcare system with expertise in CPGs and/or quality management, was nominated to vote on recommendations for guideline-based development of QIs. The iterative, structured consensus process included a two-stage online survey based on the Delphi method ("preliminary voting") and a moderated final stakeholder conference where all those recommendations were definitely included in the QI Standard that received approval of more than 75 % (consensus criterion) of the consensus panel. RESULTS: Based on the agreed QI Standard, the QI development process starts with a criteria-based selection of "potential" QIs which - in case of adoption - are published in CPGs as "preliminary" QIs and can achieve the status "final" after successful testing. The QI Standard is composed of a total of 30 recommendations, which are allocated to six areas: A) preparatory work steps for the guideline-based recommendation of QIs, B) QI development group and cooperation with the CPG group, C) development of potential QIs, D) critical appraisal of potential QIs, E) formal adoption and publication as well as F) piloting/testing of preliminary QIs and conversion into final QIs. DISCUSSION: Before the QI Standard can be recommended for implementation in future CPGs, it should have been successfully tested in selected German CPG projects. In addition to methodological requirements for the QI development, it must be ensured that guideline groups have adequate resources for the implementation of the QI Standard. CONCLUSION: By using the QI Standard, scientifically sound and healthcare-relevant QIs can be expected.

[Database indexing of health science journals from the German-speaking area: A journal analysis]. / Datenbankindexierung von gesundheitswissenschaftlichen Fachzeitschriften aus dem deutschsprachigen Raum: eine Zeitschriftenanalyse.

BACKGROUND: Journal hand searching offers the possibility to complement a literature search as part of systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses. Hand searching is indicated in cases where scientific journals with potentially relevant publications addressing the research question are not indexed in a literature database. However, it is often unclear whether these journals are actually indexed, and when they are, in which literature databases. In many cases, it is also unknown which journals should be searched by hand in addition to systematic literature search after databases to be searched have been specified. Therefore, the project aimed to investigate the indexation of selected scientific health science journals and to provide an overview of indexation in order to facilitate the hand search planning process. METHODS: Journals from German-speaking countries covering eight professional fields (medical laboratory assistance, occupational therapy, midwifery, logopedics, nursing, physiotherapy, public health and rehabilitation) were considered that publish original research papers or systematic reviews or other review types in German and/or English. Two researchers per field identified relevant journals and independently analyzed the indexing locations using the journal websites. In case of missing information, we contacted the editors. RESULTS: A total of 70 journals were included: from 1 to 17 journals per field. These journals are indexed in 1 to 29 databases. Twelve journals are not indexed or do not offer information concerning indexation. Indexation is distributed across n=74 different literature databases. Most journals are indexed in LIVIVO (n=55) and bibnet.org (n=33). Other common indexing databases are Scopus (n=18), Web of Science Core Collection (n=16), PSYNDEX (n=13), and Embase (n=10). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate a heterogeneous indexation of the included journals. Only a small number is indexed in common international literature databases such as MEDLINE or CINAHL. On the other hand, only a few journals are not indexed in any database. The results can be used as a basis to define databases for literature searches as part of systematic reviews. In addition, the findings might guide the selection of journals for hand searching after literature databases have been defined.