Trial reportThe Canadian journal of cardiology2010
Referrals in acute coronary events for CARdiac catheterization: The RACE CAR trial.
Trial report in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Dual Effect of IL-6 -174 G/C Polymorphism and Promoter Methylation in the Risk of Coronary Artery Disease Among South Indians.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2019Article
- Sex, socioeconomic status, access to cardiac catheterization, and outcomes for acute coronary syndromes in the context of universal healthcare coverage.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2014Article
- Factors associated with the accuracy of physicians' predictions of patient adherence.Patient education and counseling · 2011Article
- Article
- Coronary artery disease in women.Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWomen with acute coronary syndromes have lower rates of cardiac catheterization (CC) than men.
objectiveTo determine whether sex⁄gender, age, risk level and patient preference influence physician decision making to refer patients for CC.
methodsTwelve clinical scenarios controlling for sex⁄gender, age (55 or 75 years of age), Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score (low, moderate or high) and patient preference for CC (agreeable or refused⁄no preference expressed) were designed. Scenarios were administered to specialists across Canada using a web-based computerized survey instrument. Questions were standardized using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely to benefit from CC) to 5 (very likely to benefit from CC). Outcomes were assessed using a two-tailed mixed linear regression model.
resultsOf 237 scenarios, physicians rated men as more likely to benefit from CC than women (mean [± SE] 4.44±0.07 versus 4.25±0.07, P=0.03), adjusted for age, risk and patient preference. Low-risk men were perceived to benefit more than low-risk women (4.20±0.13 versus 3.54±0.14, P<0.01), and low-risk younger patients were perceived to benefit more than low-risk older patients (4.52±0.17 versus 3.22±0.16, P<0.01). Regardless of risk, patients who agreed to CC were perceived as more likely to benefit from CC than patients who were disagreeable or made no comment at all (5.0±0.23, 3.67±0.21, 2.95±0.14, respectively, P<0.01).
conclusionCanadian specialists' decisions to refer patients for CC appear to be influenced by sex⁄gender, age and patient preference in clinical scenarios in which cardiac risk is held constant. Future investigation of possible age and sex⁄gender biases as proxies for risk is warranted.
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.