How many cath labs do we need?

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.

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.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Modelling the coverage gap in percutaneous coronary intervention in LMIC: a geospatial analysis of cath lab coverage in Indonesia.Open heart · 2026
   Article
2. Percutaneous coronary intervention still not accessible for many South Africans.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2017
   Article
3. The dangers of iodine-based contrasts in an elderly patient with thyroid disease.BMJ case reports · 2015
   Article
4. Physicians' acquaintance with a new procedure results in higher patient referral: experience of Kosovo in coronary angiography.Heart international · 2012
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as