***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE To conduct a pilot study to compare the frequency of errors that accompany single vs. double data extraction , compare the estimate of treatment effect derived from these methods , and compare the time requirements for these methods . METHODS Review ers were r and omized to the role of data extractor or data verifier , and were blind to the study hypothesis . The frequency of errors associated with each method of data extraction was compared using the McNemar test . The data set for each method was used to calculate an efficacy estimate by each method , using st and ard meta-analytic techniques . The time requirement for each method was compared using a paired t-test . RESULTS Single data extraction result ed in more errors than double data extraction ( relative difference : 21.7 % , P = .019 ) . There was no substantial difference between methods in effect estimates for most outcomes . The average time spent for single data extraction  was less than the average time for double data extraction ( relative difference : 36.1 % , P = .003 ) . CONCLUSION In the case that single data extraction is used in systematic review s , review ers and readers need to be mindful of the possibility for more errors and the potential impact these errors may have on effect estimates Background Quality indicator collection and feedback improves stroke care . We sought to determine whether quality improvement training plus indicator feedback was more effective than indicator feedback alone in improving inpatient stroke indicators . Methods We conducted a cluster-r and omised quality improvement trial , r and omising hospitals to quality improvement training plus indicator feedback versus indicator feedback alone to improve deep vein thrombosis ( DVT ) prophylaxis and dysphagia screening . Intervention sites received collaborative-based quality improvement training , external facilitation and indicator feedback . Control sites received only indicator feedback . We compared indicators pre-implementation ( pre-I ) to active implementation ( active-I ) and post-implementation ( post-I ) periods . We constructed mixed-effect logistic models of the two indicators with a r and om intercept for hospital effect , adjusting for patient , time , intervention and hospital variables . Results Patients at intervention sites ( 1147 admissions ) , had similar race , gender and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores to control sites ( 1017 admissions ) .  DVT prophylaxis improved more in intervention sites during active-I period ( ratio of ORs 4.90 , p<0.001 ) , but did not differ in post-I period . Dysphagia screening improved similarly in both groups during active-I , but control sites improved more in post-I period ( ratio of ORs 0.67 , p=0.04 ) . In logistic models , the intervention was independently positively associated with DVT performance during active-I period , and negatively associated with dysphagia performance post-I period . Conclusion Quality improvement training was associated with early DVT improvement , but the effect was not sustained over time and was not seen with dysphagia screening . External quality improvement programmes may quickly boost performance but their effect may vary by indicator and may not sustain over time 
    Output:
    
Although similarities were found , no approaches contained the same combination of the constructs nor did any single approach capture all identified constructs .
From these results , a consoli date d framework for sustainability constructs in healthcare was developed .
Conclusions Choosing a sustainability method can pose a challenge because of the diverse approaches reported in the literature .