Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20092087›Full record

ArticleThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2009

Safer cardiac surgery.

Alan F Merry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. To do or not to do?--How people make decisions.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alan F MerryUniversity of Auckland and Green Lane Department of Anaesthesia, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.
Auckland City Hospital · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Safety in cardiac surgery should be evaluated in the context of the other elements of quality in healthcare (timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and most importantly, patient-centeredness). Mortality alone is not an adequate index of safety: Stroke is particularly feared by patients and prolonged periods of hospitalization can be very difficult for families to cope with. Advances in knowledge, technology, and medications have improved outcomes, but pharmacological means of reducing cerebral dysfunction after cardiopulmonary bypass remain elusive. Clear differences can be demonstrated between the results of different surgeons and also between different anesthesiologists. The World Health Organization's recently introduced Surgical Safety Checklist provides a validated and inexpensive cognitive aid to reduce human error and improve teamwork and communication in the operating room. Patient selection is very important, and patients should be given clear information on the relative merits of alternative treatments (for example, coronary surgery, percutaneous intervention, and medical treatment in the case of coronary artery disease). In the end, outcomes that the patients themselves desire are the most meaningful endpoint of the pursuit of safer cardiac surgery.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionCardiac Surgical ProceduresHumansQuality Assurance, Health CareSafety ManagementStrokeSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID20092087
PMCPMC4813534
OpenAlexW2994451721

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.