Introduction:

The quality of health services is a determining factor to minimize any risk and increase patient satisfaction. Servqual is a scale with good validity and reproducibility to rate quality.

Objective:

To meta-analyze the quality of medical services according to the dimensions of Servqual.

Method:

Systematic revision of scientific literature related to Servqual in Medline-PubMed, ScienceDirect, Lilacs, Redalyc and Scielo. The guide prisma was used to select studies, and the guide Strobe was used to evaluate editorial and methodological quality. The analysis was made with Galbraith, Dersimonian Laird's, Begg, Funnel and Forest Plot for each dimension of quality. We carried out a meta regression according to the type of evaluated service, institution and methodological quality.

Results:

The most studied areas are consultation and hospitalization. A global result showed good quality with a mean difference of 0.93 (CI of 95% = 0,53 - 1,33); in tangibility, it was 1.39 (IC of 95% = 0.84 - 1.94), in reliability it was 1.16 (CI of 95% = 0.64 - 1.67), in responsiveness, it was 1.03 (CI of 95% = 0,50 - 1,57), in safety it was 0.91 (CI of 95% = 0.490 - 1,57), in safety it was 0.91 (CI of 95% = 0.49 - 1.34) and in empathy it was 0.94 (0.40 - 1.49). The best quality profile was found in consultation and in public institutions.

Conclusion:

research about evaluation of quality in health, according to the dimensions of Servqual, results meager in America. There was a good profile in quality of systematic services, since they have the best performance and most relevant information to improve the efforts of evaluation of quality as a key ending of health assistance.

        · abstract in Spanish | Portuguese     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )