Basing decisions on better quality routine clinical data

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 327-328

  Sheldon, T A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL STUDY; DATA BASE; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; MEDICAL RECORD; NOTE; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 0142209256     PISSN: 09638172     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qhc.12.5.327     Document Type: Note

References (5)

1. Sowden A, Sheldon TA. Does volume really affect outcome? Lessons from the evidence. J Health Serv Res Policy 1998;3:187-90.
2. Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D. The Consort statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomised trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987-91.
3. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. Quality of reporting meta-analysis. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900.
4. Black N, Payne M. Directory of clinical databases: improving and promoting their use. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:348-52.
5. Fine L, Keogh BE, Cretin S, et al. How to evaluate and improve the quality and credibility of an outcomes database: validation and feedback study on the UK cardiac surgery experience. BMJ 2003;326:25-8.