ArticleThe Canadian journal of cardiology2008
Resource allocation among cardiovascular specialists and trainees: a pilot survey.
Article in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo assess the relative importance that cardiovascular specialists assign to new technologies.
methodsA pilot survey of practising cardiologists in one tertiary hospital and cardiology trainees from two university programs. Respondents were asked to distribute a hypothetical budget among several new technologies.
resultsA total of 28 responses (response rate of 62%) were analyzed. In the hypothetical situation described, doctors appeared willing to spend approximately equal amounts on implantable cardiac defibrillators (median 25%, interquartile range 5% to 30%) and bare metal coronary stents (median 28%, interquartile range 20% to 40%). Physicians were more restrained in their allocation for refinements of these two technologies, including drug-eluting stents and biventricular pacing. Wide individual variations in technology use were noted.
conclusionsThere is considerable uncertainty among cardiovascular specialists regarding the relative value of new technologies. Further work is required to better quantify this uncertainty and its determinants.
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.