All reporting guidelines
Check your manuscript against SQUIRE.
- Guideline
- SQUIRE 2.0 (2015)
- Items
- 18
- Criteria
- 40
- Sections
- 6
- Applies to
- quality improvement study
System-level work to improve the quality, safety or value of healthcare, where methods were used to establish that the observed outcomes were due to the intervention. Consider every item. Some will not suit a given manuscript.
Named by the quality and safety journals. Implementation science reviewers apply it as the reporting standard.
SQUIRE 2.0 (2015) · Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence
What comes back40 criteria
Showing all 40 criteria.
Title and abstract
- Title1Title1Indicate that the manuscript concerns an initiative to improve healthcare (broadly defined to include the quality, safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, cost, efficiency, and equity of healthcare)
- Abstract2aAbstract2aProvide adequate information to aid in searching and indexing
- 2b2bSummarize all key information from various sections of the text using the abstract format of the intended publication or a structured summary such as: background, local problem, methods, interventions, results, conclusions
Introduction: why did you start?
- Problem description3Problem description3Nature and significance of the local problem
- Available knowledge4Available knowledge4Summary of what is currently known about the problem, including relevant previous studies
- Rationale5Rationale5Informal or formal frameworks, models, concepts, and/or theories used to explain the problem, any reasons or assumptions that were used to develop the intervention(s), and reasons why the intervention(s) was expected to work
- Specific aims6Specific aims6Purpose of the project and of this report
Methods: what did you do?
- Context7Context7Contextual elements considered important at the outset of introducing the intervention(s)
- Intervention(s)8aIntervention(s)8aDescription of the intervention(s) in sufficient detail that others could reproduce it
- 8b8bSpecifics of the team involved in the work
- Study of the intervention(s)9aStudy of the intervention(s)9aApproach chosen for assessing the impact of the intervention(s)
- 9b9bApproach used to establish whether the observed outcomes were due to the intervention(s)
- Measures10aMeasures10aMeasures chosen for studying processes and outcomes of the intervention(s), including rationale for choosing them, their operational definitions, and their validity and reliability
- 10b10bDescription of the approach to the ongoing assessment of contextual elements that contributed to the success, failure, efficiency, and cost
- 10c10cMethods employed for assessing completeness and accuracy of data
- Analysis11aAnalysis11aQualitative and quantitative methods used to draw inferences from the data
- 11b11bMethods for understanding variation within the data, including the effects of time as a variable
- Ethical considerations12Ethical considerations12Ethical aspects of implementing and studying the intervention(s) and how they were addressed, including, but not limited to, formal ethics review and potential conflict(s) of interest
Results: what did you find?
- Results13aResults13aInitial steps of the intervention(s) and their evolution over time (e.g., time-line diagram, flow chart, or table), including modifications made to the intervention during the project
- 13b13bDetails of the process measures and outcome
- 13c13cContextual elements that interacted with the intervention(s)
- 13d13dObserved associations between outcomes, interventions, and relevant contextual elements
- 13e13eUnintended consequences such as unexpected benefits, problems, failures, or costs associated with the intervention(s)
- 13f13fDetails about missing data
Discussion: what does it mean?
- Summary14aSummary14aKey findings, including relevance to the rationale and specific aims
- 14b14bParticular strengths of the project
- Interpretation15aInterpretation15aNature of the association between the intervention(s) and the outcomes
- 15b15bComparison of results with findings from other publications
- 15c15cImpact of the project on people and systems
- 15d15dReasons for any differences between observed and anticipated outcomes, including the influence of context
- 15e15eCosts and strategic trade-offs, including opportunity costs
- Limitations16aLimitations16aLimits to the generalizability of the work
- 16b16bFactors that might have limited internal validity such as confounding, bias, or imprecision in the design, methods, measurement, or analysis
- 16c16cEfforts made to minimize and adjust for limitations
- Conclusions17aConclusions17aUsefulness of the work
- 17b17bSustainability
- 17c17cPotential for spread to other contexts
- 17d17dImplications for practice and for further study in the field
- 17e17eSuggested next steps
Other information
- Funding18Funding18Sources of funding that supported this work. Role, if any, of the funding organization in the design, implementation, interpretation, and reporting
SQUIRE 2.0 (2015) checklist items reproduced from the published guideline. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, Batalden P, Davidoff F, Stevens D. SQUIRE 2.0: revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. Free to use with citation, per the SQUIRE statement.
What comes back
See one item in fullThe same form, marked against your own manuscript.
The sample above is an illustration. On your manuscript, all 40 criteria come back marked, and the ones that fall short raise a mark in the margin of the paper itself.
- Met, partly met, not met or not applicable, for every item
- Each item highlighted in your text, ready to amend
- What is missing, how to fix it, and where in the paper it belongs
- The whole form, downloadable as a marked spreadsheet
Working on something else?
All guidelines