Abstract
We commend McLaws et al. for their informative review on the validity of surgical wound infection as a clinical indicator in Australia. We too, wish to emphasize that consistency in case‐finding methods and indicator definitions is mandatory when pooling data and using indicator rates to compare quality of care.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 536-537 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Journal | Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery |
| Volume | 68 |
| Issue number | 7 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 18 Jul 1998 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The validity of surgical wound infection as a clinical indicator in Australia: Comment and measuring surgical wound infection: Comment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Cite this
Majoor, J. W., Ibrahim, J. E., Cicuttini, F. M., McNeil, J. J., & McLaws, M. L. (1998). The validity of surgical wound infection as a clinical indicator in Australia: Comment and measuring surgical wound infection: Comment. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, 68(7), 536-537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04818.x