Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey

Abstract

IntroductionQuality improvement (QI) is a growing field of inquiry in healthcare, but the reporting quality of QI studies in neonatology remains unclear. We conducted a systematic survey of the literature to assess the reporting quality of QI studies and factors associated with reporting quality.MethodsWe searched Medline for publications of QI studies from 2016 to 16 April 2020. Pairs of reviewers independently screened citations and assessed reporting quality using a 31-item modified Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence, 2nd edition (SQUIRE 2.0) checklist. We reported the number (percentage) of studies that reported each item and their corresponding 95% CIs. We used Poisson regression to explore factors associated with reporting quality, namely, journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0, declaration of funding sources, year of publication and number of authors. The results were reported as incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% CI.ResultsOf 1921 citations, 336 were eligible; among them, we randomly selected 100 articles to assess reporting quality. The mean (standard deviation) number of SQUIRE 2.0 items adhered to was 22.0 (4.5). Percentage of articles reporting each item varied from 26% to 100%. Journal endorsement of SQUIRE 2.0 (IRR=1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21, p=0.015), declaration of funding sources and increasing number of authors were significantly associated with better reporting.ConclusionsReporting quality of QI studies in neonatology is inadequate. Endorsing the SQUIRE 2.0 guideline is a step that journals can implement to enhance the completeness of reporting.

Publishing quality improvement studies: learning to share and sharing to learn

“…Publishing QI studies is therefore a potentially useful method to improve the sharing of findings, but the literature shows that the completeness and quality of such reporting, including in perioperative care, are poor. 14 , 15 , 16 QI studies typically fall into two groups: QI projects , which seek to address a local problem, or evaluation studies , which seek to generate wider knowledge and can be termed improvement science . 15 , 17 QI projects often do not fit the norms of traditional biomedical academic publishing, as they are heterogenous, using broad scopes of both interventions (such as care bundles or reminder systems) and methodologies (such as plan–do–study–act or lean).…”