Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10530297›Full record

ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne1999

Fairness in the coronary angiography queue.

D A Alter, A S Basinski, E A Cohen, C D Naylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2002
    Article
  6. The waiting game: facing the consequences.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2002
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

D A AlterSunnybrook & Women's College Health Sciences Centre, Ont.
A S Basinski
E A Cohen
C D Naylor
Sunnybrook Health Science Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince waiting lists for coronary angiography are generally managed without explicit queuing criteria, patients may not receive priority on the basis of clinical acuity. The objective of this study was to examine clinical and nonclinical determinants of the length of time patients wait for coronary angiography.

methodsIn this single-centre prospective cohort study conducted in the autumn of 1997, 357 consecutive patients were followed from initial triage until a coronary angiography was performed or an adverse cardiac event occurred. The referring physicians' hospital affiliation (physicians at Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Sciences Centre, those who practice at another centre but perform angiography at Sunnybrook and those with no previous association with Sunnybrook) was used to compare processes of care. A clinical urgency rating scale was used to assign a recommended maximum waiting time (RMWT) to each patient retrospectively, but this was not used in the queuing process. RMWTs and actual waiting times for patients in the 3 referral groups were compared; the influence clinical and nonclinical variables had on the actual length of time patients waited for coronary angiography was assessed; and possible predictors of adverse events were examined.

resultsOf 357 patients referred to Sunnybrook, 22 (6.2%) experienced adverse events while in the queue. Among those who remained, 308 (91.9%) were in need of coronary angiography; 201 (60.0%) of those patients received one within the RMWT. The length of time to angiography was influenced by clinical characteristics similar to those specified on the urgency rating scale, leading to a moderate agreement between actual waiting times and RMWTs (kappa = 0.53). However, physician affiliation was a highly significant (p < 0.001) and independent predictor of waiting time. Whereas 45.6% of the variation in waiting time was explained by all clinical factors combined, 9.3% of the variation was explained by physician affiliation alone.

interpretationInformal queuing practices for coronary angiography do reflect clinical acuity, but they are also influenced by nonclinical factors, such as the nature of the physicians' association with the catheterization facility.

Indexed as

Coronary AngiographyPatient SelectionWaiting ListsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleForecastingHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysician's RoleReferral and ConsultationTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID10530297
PMCPMC1230652
OpenAlexW1820462473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.