肾癌护理质量指标:系统综述。

IF 8.3 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Alessio Pecoraro, Sara Costagli, Laura Marandino, Raghav Varma, Maarten Albersen, Umberto Capitanio, Michael Jewett, Alexander Kutikov, Steven MacLennan, Grant D Stewart, Patricia Zondervan, Lorenzo Masieri, Andrea Minervini, Sergio Serni, Axel Bex, Riccardo Campi
{"title":"肾癌护理质量指标:系统综述。","authors":"Alessio Pecoraro, Sara Costagli, Laura Marandino, Raghav Varma, Maarten Albersen, Umberto Capitanio, Michael Jewett, Alexander Kutikov, Steven MacLennan, Grant D Stewart, Patricia Zondervan, Lorenzo Masieri, Andrea Minervini, Sergio Serni, Axel Bex, Riccardo Campi","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2025.05.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Quality indicators (QIs) are crucial for evaluating health care delivery, including effectiveness, safety, and patient-centered outcomes. In contrast to other fields, the definition and implementation of QIs for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) present distinct challenges and remain unmet needs. We summarized the available data on QIs for RCC, focusing on their characterization throughout the care pathway and the potential areas for further development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of the English-language literature was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases from January 2000 to March 2025, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024511924). Quality assessment was evaluated according to the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Out of 58948 potentially relevant papers, 12 sets of QIs (including an overall number of 86 distinct QIs) were identified from 12 studies. QI sets had a large variation in development strategy and quality. Only five studies scored a total of ≥50% on the AIRE tool across four domains. The process employed to develop the set of QIs was heterogeneous across the included papers. The number of proposed QIs varied significantly across studies (range: 1-25). Only a few studies specified the target population explicitly. The QIs addressed different stages of RCC care pathways: diagnosis (33%), staging (25%), data collection (25%), treatment (67%), pathology (42%), outcomes (83%), hospital facilities (25%), and follow-up (17%). Although 83% (10/12) sets have been piloted in practice, none of these has been validated externally. Regardless of the domain, most studies did not specifically report any cutoff value to evaluate whether the proposed QIs were fulfilled or not.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>Our review found a relative lack of evidence on QIs for RCC, as well as heterogeneity in their development strategy, definition, reporting, and the included domains of the RCC care pathway. Further efforts are needed to reach consensus on the appropriately developed QIs that could define the quality of care for RCC and to assess their association with clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality Indicators for Renal Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Alessio Pecoraro, Sara Costagli, Laura Marandino, Raghav Varma, Maarten Albersen, Umberto Capitanio, Michael Jewett, Alexander Kutikov, Steven MacLennan, Grant D Stewart, Patricia Zondervan, Lorenzo Masieri, Andrea Minervini, Sergio Serni, Axel Bex, Riccardo Campi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.euo.2025.05.012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Quality indicators (QIs) are crucial for evaluating health care delivery, including effectiveness, safety, and patient-centered outcomes. In contrast to other fields, the definition and implementation of QIs for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) present distinct challenges and remain unmet needs. We summarized the available data on QIs for RCC, focusing on their characterization throughout the care pathway and the potential areas for further development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of the English-language literature was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases from January 2000 to March 2025, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024511924). Quality assessment was evaluated according to the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Out of 58948 potentially relevant papers, 12 sets of QIs (including an overall number of 86 distinct QIs) were identified from 12 studies. QI sets had a large variation in development strategy and quality. Only five studies scored a total of ≥50% on the AIRE tool across four domains. The process employed to develop the set of QIs was heterogeneous across the included papers. The number of proposed QIs varied significantly across studies (range: 1-25). Only a few studies specified the target population explicitly. The QIs addressed different stages of RCC care pathways: diagnosis (33%), staging (25%), data collection (25%), treatment (67%), pathology (42%), outcomes (83%), hospital facilities (25%), and follow-up (17%). Although 83% (10/12) sets have been piloted in practice, none of these has been validated externally. Regardless of the domain, most studies did not specifically report any cutoff value to evaluate whether the proposed QIs were fulfilled or not.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>Our review found a relative lack of evidence on QIs for RCC, as well as heterogeneity in their development strategy, definition, reporting, and the included domains of the RCC care pathway. Further efforts are needed to reach consensus on the appropriately developed QIs that could define the quality of care for RCC and to assess their association with clinical outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European urology oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European urology oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2025.05.012\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2025.05.012","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:质量指标(QIs)对于评估医疗服务提供至关重要,包括有效性、安全性和以患者为中心的结果。与其他领域相比,肾细胞癌(RCC)的QIs的定义和实施存在明显的挑战,并且仍未满足需求。我们总结了关于肾细胞癌QIs的现有数据,重点关注其在整个护理途径中的特征和进一步发展的潜在领域。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目(PROSPERO ID: CRD42024511924),使用MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane数据库对2000年1月至2025年3月期间的英语文献进行系统评价。采用研究与评价指标评价法(AIRE)对质量评价进行评价。主要发现和局限性:在58948篇可能相关的论文中,从12项研究中确定了12组质量指标(包括86个不同的质量指标)。QI集在开发策略和质量上有很大的差异。只有5项研究在四个领域的AIRE工具上得分≥50%。在收录的论文中,用于开发QIs集的过程是异构的。不同研究中提出的QIs数量差异很大(范围:1-25)。只有少数研究明确规定了目标人群。QIs涉及RCC治疗途径的不同阶段:诊断(33%)、分期(25%)、数据收集(25%)、治疗(67%)、病理(42%)、结局(83%)、医院设施(25%)和随访(17%)。虽然有83%(10/12)套已经在实践中进行了试点,但这些都没有得到外部验证。无论在哪个领域,大多数研究都没有明确报告任何临界值来评估所提出的质量指标是否得到满足。结论和临床意义:我们的综述发现,RCC的QIs证据相对缺乏,其发展策略、定义、报告和RCC治疗途径的包括领域也存在异质性。需要进一步努力就适当制定的质量指标达成共识,以确定RCC的护理质量,并评估其与临床结果的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality Indicators for Renal Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

Background and objective: Quality indicators (QIs) are crucial for evaluating health care delivery, including effectiveness, safety, and patient-centered outcomes. In contrast to other fields, the definition and implementation of QIs for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) present distinct challenges and remain unmet needs. We summarized the available data on QIs for RCC, focusing on their characterization throughout the care pathway and the potential areas for further development.

Methods: A systematic review of the English-language literature was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases from January 2000 to March 2025, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024511924). Quality assessment was evaluated according to the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument.

Key findings and limitations: Out of 58948 potentially relevant papers, 12 sets of QIs (including an overall number of 86 distinct QIs) were identified from 12 studies. QI sets had a large variation in development strategy and quality. Only five studies scored a total of ≥50% on the AIRE tool across four domains. The process employed to develop the set of QIs was heterogeneous across the included papers. The number of proposed QIs varied significantly across studies (range: 1-25). Only a few studies specified the target population explicitly. The QIs addressed different stages of RCC care pathways: diagnosis (33%), staging (25%), data collection (25%), treatment (67%), pathology (42%), outcomes (83%), hospital facilities (25%), and follow-up (17%). Although 83% (10/12) sets have been piloted in practice, none of these has been validated externally. Regardless of the domain, most studies did not specifically report any cutoff value to evaluate whether the proposed QIs were fulfilled or not.

Conclusions and clinical implications: Our review found a relative lack of evidence on QIs for RCC, as well as heterogeneity in their development strategy, definition, reporting, and the included domains of the RCC care pathway. Further efforts are needed to reach consensus on the appropriately developed QIs that could define the quality of care for RCC and to assess their association with clinical outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
128
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: Journal Name: European Urology Oncology Affiliation: Official Journal of the European Association of Urology Focus: First official publication of the EAU fully devoted to the study of genitourinary malignancies Aims to deliver high-quality research Content: Includes original articles, opinion piece editorials, and invited reviews Covers clinical, basic, and translational research Publication Frequency: Six times a year in electronic format
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信