To the Editor In response to the Editorial by Grady and colleagues about quality improvement for quality improvement studies1 that was published in a recent issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, we disagree that rigor always requires concurrent controls and randomization. Time series with multiple data points provide comparable evaluative rigor to controlled, nonrandomized trials. When an intervention needs refinement, as is often the case in quality improvement, they often represent a more efficient evaluative strategy. The SQUIRE guidelines,2 which Grady and colleagues1 recommend to encourage improved reporting, explicitly list analyses that include the effects of time as a variable as appropriate.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Wong BM, Shojania KG. Rigor in Quality Improvement Studies and the Role of Time-Series Methodologies. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(5):724–725. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0863
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: