BACKGROUND: An increasing number of countries are using or planning to use quality indicators (QIs) in residential long-term care. Knowledge regarding the current state of evidence on usage and methodological soundness of publicly reported clinical indicators of quality in nursing homes is needed. The study aimed to answer the questions: 1) Which health-related QIs for residents in long-term care are currently publicly reported internationally? and 2) What is the methodological quality of these indicators?
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL and Embase in October 2019 and last updated on August 31st, 2022. Grey literature was also searched. We used the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument for the methodological quality assessment of the identified QIs.
RESULTS: Of 23\'344 identified records, 22 articles and one report describing 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, we found 17 websites publishing information on QIs. We identified eight countries publicly reporting a total of 99 health-related QIs covering 31 themes. Each country used between six and 31 QIs. The most frequently reported indicators were pressure ulcers, falls, physical restraints, and weight loss. For most QI sets, we found basic information regarding e.g., purpose, definition of the indicators, risk-adjustment, and stakeholders\' involvement in QIs\' selection. Little up to date information was found regarding validity, reliability and discriminative power of the QIs. Only the Australian indicator set reached high methodological quality, defined as scores of 50% or higher in all four AIRE instrument domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Little information is available to the public and researchers for the evaluation of a large number of publicly reported QIs in the residential long-term care sector. Better reporting is needed on the methodological quality of QIs in this setting, whether they are meant for internal quality improvement or provider comparison.

Lokomat therapy for gait rehabilitation has become increasingly popular. Most evidence suggests that Lokomat therapy is equally effective as but not superior to standard therapy approaches. One reason might be that the Lokomat parameters to personalize therapy, such as gait speed, body weight support and Guidance Force, are not optimally used. However, there is little evidence available about the influence of Lokomat parameters on the effectiveness of the therapy. Nevertheless, an appropriate reporting of the applied therapy parameters is key to the successful clinical transfer of study results. The aim of this scoping review was therefore to evaluate how the currently available clinical studies report Lokomat parameter settings and map the current literature on Lokomat therapy parameters.
A systematic literature search was performed in three databases: Pubmed, Scopus and Embase. All primary research articles performing therapy with the Lokomat in neurologic populations in English or German were included. The quality of reporting of all clinical studies was assessed with a framework developed for this particular purpose. We identified 208 studies investigating Lokomat therapy in patients with neurologic diseases. The reporting quality was generally poor. Less than a third of the studies indicate which parameter settings have been applied. The usability of the reporting for a clinical transfer of promising results is therefore limited.
Although the currently available evidence on Lokomat parameters suggests that therapy parameters might have an influence on the effectiveness, there is currently not enough evidence available to provide detailed recommendations. Nevertheless, clinicians should pay close attention to the reported therapy parameters when translating research findings to their own clinical practice. To this end, we propose that the quality of reporting should be improved and we provide a reporting framework for authors as a quality control before submitting a Lokomat-related article.

BACKGROUND: Since 2009, hospital quality policy in Flanders, Belgium, is built around a quality-of-care triad, which encompasses accreditation, public reporting (PR) and inspection. Policy makers are currently reflecting on the added value of this triad.
METHODS: We performed a narrative review of the literature published between 2009 and 2020 to examine the evidence base of the impact accreditation, PR and inspection, both individually and combined, has on patient processes and outcomes. The following patient outcomes were examined: mortality, length of stay, readmissions, patient satisfaction, adverse outcomes, failure to rescue, adherence to process measures and risk aversion. The impact of accreditation, PR and inspection on these outcomes was evaluated as either positive, neutral (i.e. no impact observed or mixed results reported) or negative.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the current evidence base on the impact of accreditation, PR and inspection on patient processes and outcomes.
RESULTS: We identified 69 studies, of which 40 were on accreditation, 24 on PR, three on inspection and two on accreditation and PR concomitantly. Identified studies reported primarily low-level evidence (level IV, n = 53) and were heterogeneous in terms of implemented programmes and patient populations (often narrow in PR research). Overall, a neutral categorization was determined in 30 articles for accreditation, 23 for PR and four for inspection. Ten of these recounted mixed results. For accreditation, a high number (n = 12) of positive research on adherence to process measures was discovered.
CONCLUSIONS: The individual impact of accreditation, PR and inspection, the core of Flemish hospital quality, was found to be limited on patient outcomes. Future studies should investigate the combined effect of multiple quality improvement strategies.

Public performance reporting (PPR) of physician and hospital data aims to improve health outcomes by promoting quality improvement and informing consumer choice. However, previous studies have demonstrated inconsistent effects of PPR, potentially due to the various PPR characteristics examined. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the impact and mechanisms (selection and change), by which PPR exerts its influence.
Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were retrieved from five databases and eight reviews. Data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted. Studies were categorised into: user and provider responses to PPR and impact of PPR on quality of care.
Forty-five studies were identified: 24 on user and provider responses to PPR, 14 on impact of PPR on quality of care, and seven on both. Most of the studies reported positive effects of PPR on the selection of providers by patients, purchasers and providers, quality improvement activities in primary care clinics and hospitals, clinical outcomes and patient experiences.
The findings provide moderate level of evidence to support the role of PPR in stimulating quality improvement activities, informing consumer choice and improving clinical outcomes. There was some evidence to demonstrate a relationship between PPR and patient experience. The effects of PPR varied across clinical areas which may be related to the type of indicators, level of data reported and the mode of dissemination. It is important to ensure that the design and implementation of PPR considered the perspectives of different users and the health system in which PPR operates in. There is a need to account for factors such as the structural characteristics and culture of the hospitals that could influence the uptake of PPR.

BACKGROUND: High-quality, well-reported clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) underpinned by systematic reviews are needed. We appraised the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs for breast cancer (BC) treatment.
METHODS: Following protocol registration (Prospero no: CRD42020164801), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2017 to June 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate assessing overall quality using AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting compliance using RIGHT (% of total 35 items); reviewer agreement was 98% and 96% respectively.
RESULTS: There were 59 relevant guidance documents (43 CPGs, 16 CSs), of which 20 used systematic reviews for evidence synthesis. The median overall quality was 54.0% (IQR 35.9-74.3) and the median overall reporting compliance was 60.9% (IQR 44.5-84.4). The correlation between quality and reporting was 0.9. Compared to CSs, CPGs had better quality (55.4% vs 44.2%; p = 0.032) and reporting (67.18% vs 44.5%; p = 0.005). Compared to subjective methods of evidence analysis, guidance documents that used systematic reviews had better quality (76.3% vs 51.4%; p = 0.001) and reporting (87.1% vs 59.4%; p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs in BC treatment were moderately strong. Systematic reviews should be used to improve the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs.

UNASSIGNED: Routine health information systems (RHISs) are crucial to informing decision-making at all levels of the health system. However, the use of RHIS data in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited due to concerns regarding quality, accuracy, timeliness, completeness and representativeness.
UNASSIGNED: This study systematically reviewed technical, behavioural and organisational/environmental challenges that hinder the use of RHIS data in LMICs and strategies implemented to overcome these challenges.
UNASSIGNED: Four electronic databases were searched for studies describing challenges associated with the use of RHIS data and/or strategies implemented to circumvent these challenges in LMICs. Identified articles were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers.
UNASSIGNED: Sixty studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review, 55 of which described challenges in using RHIS data and 20 of which focused on strategies to address these challenges. Identified challenges and strategies were organised by their technical, behavioural and organisational/environmental determinants and by the core steps of the data process. Organisational/environmental challenges were the most commonly reported barriers to data use, while technical challenges were the most commonly addressed with strategies.
UNASSIGNED: Despite the known benefits of RHIS data for health system strengthening, numerous challenges continue to impede their use in practice.
UNASSIGNED: Additional research is needed to identify effective strategies for addressing the determinants of RHIS use, particularly given the disconnect identified between the type of challenge most commonly described in the literature and the type of challenge most commonly targeted for interventions.

Burn wound infections result in delayed healing and increased pain, scarring, sepsis risk and healthcare costs. Clinical decision making about burn wound infection should be supported by evidence syntheses. Validity of evidence from systematic reviews may be reduced if definitions of burn wound infectionvary between trials. This review aimed to determine whether burn wound infectionis defined, and whether there is variation in the indicators used to define burn wound infectionacross studies testing interventions for patients with burns.
Searches were carried out in four databases (Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane Register of Trials) to identify studies evaluating interventions for patients with burns and reporting a burn wound infection outcome. Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were systematically applied to select relevant studies. Data were systematically extracted and reported narratively.
2056 studies were identified, of which 72 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 71 unique datasets. 52.1% of studies were randomised controlled trials. Twenty-eight (38.0%) studies reporting a burn wound infection outcome did not report how they had defined it. In the methods of included studies, 59 studies (83.1%) reported that they planned to measure burn wound infection as an outcome. Of these, 44 studies (74.6%) described how they had defined burn wound infection; 6 studies (13.6%) reported use of a previously developed consensus-informed definition of burn wound infection, and 41 studies (69.5%) described the specific indicators used to define it. Studies used between one (11 studies; 26.8%) and nine indicators (2 studies; 4.9%) to define burn wound infection (median = 3, inter-quartile range = 2). The most commonly used indicator was presence of bacteria in the wound (61.0% of studies). Only 13 studies (31.7%) defined burn wound infection using the same indicators as at least one other study.
Within intervention studies reporting burn wound infection outcomes, a definition of this outcome is commonly not provided, or it varies between studies. This will prevent evidence synthesis to identify effective treatments for patients with burn injuries. Since there is no objective method for assessing burn wound infection, expert consensus is needed to agree a minimum set of indicators (Core Indicator Set) reported in all trials reporting burn wound infection as an outcome.

In the scientific literature, \"spin\" refers to reporting practices that make the study findings appear more favorable than results justify. The practice of \"spin\" or misrepresentation and overinterpretation may lead to an imbalanced and unjustified optimism in the interpretation of study results about performance of putative biomarkers. We aimed to classify spin (i.e., misrepresentation and overinterpretation of study findings) in recent clinical studies evaluating the performance of biomarkers in ovarian cancer.
We searched PubMed systematically for all evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers published in 2015. Studies eligible for inclusion reported the clinical performance of prognostic, predictive, or diagnostic biomarkers.
Our search identified 1,026 studies; 326 studies met all eligibility criteria, of which we evaluated the first 200 studies. Of these, 140 (70%) contained one or more form of spin in the title, abstract, or main-text conclusion, exaggerating the performance of the biomarker. The most frequent forms of spin identified were (1) other purposes of biomarker claimed not investigated (65; 32.5%); (2) mismatch between intended aim and conclusion (57; 28.5%); and (3) incorrect presentation of results (40; 20%).
Our study provides evidence of misrepresentation and overinterpretation of finding in recent clinical evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is recognized by both the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology as an optimal therapy to treat patients experiencing acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A health policy aimed at improving outcomes for the patient with AMI is public reporting of whether a patient received a PCI.
A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effect of public reporting for patients with AMI, specifically for those patients who receive PCI.
EMBASE, MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, Google Scholar, and PubMed were searched from inception through August 2017. Articles were selected for inclusion if researchers evaluated public reporting and included an outcome for whether a patient received a PCI during hospitalization for an AMI. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated, and findings were synthesized.
Eight studies of high methodological quality were included in the review. Most studies found that, in areas of public reporting, patients were less likely to undergo a PCI and high-risk patients did not undergo a PCI. Researchers also found that patients with AMI had lower in-hospital mortality after the implementation of public reporting, but only if these patients received a PCI.
Although public reporting may have had intentions of improving care, there is strong evidence that this policy did not result in more timely PCIs or improved mortality of patients with AMI. In fact, public reporting resulted in unintended consequences of not providing care for the most vulnerable patients in fear of an adverse outcome.