ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2004
Changes in rates of beta-blocker use in community hospital patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Changes in practice patterns affecting in-hospital and post-discharge survival among ACS patients.BMC health services research · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine changes in the rate of beta-blocker (BB) use at admission, in hospital, and at discharge between 1994 and 1995 (MICH I) and 1997 (MICH II) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
designComparison of two prospectively enrolled cohorts.
settingFive mid-Michigan community hospitals. PATIENTS: We studied 287 MICH I patients and 121 MICH II patients with AMI who had no contraindications to BB use from cohorts of consecutively admitted cases of AMI (814 in MICH I; 500 in MICH II).
resultsPrescription of BBs to ideal patients with AMI increased in patients with previous history of myocardial infarction on arrival at the hospital (12.5% vs 36.0%; P= .01), in hospital (47.0% vs 76%; P < .01), and at discharge (34.0% vs 61.9%; P < .01). Neither race nor gender was a predictor of BB use. Younger age predicted BB prescription at discharge (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32 to 3.23). Later study cohort was the most important predictor of BB use in hospital (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.09 to 5.25).
conclusionBB use improved dramatically over the study period, but additional work is needed to improve use of BB after discharge and among elderly patients with AMI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.