ArticleBMC health services research2011
Pathways leading to coronary revascularisation among patients with diabetes in Finland: a longitudinal register-based study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2011. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic conditions such as coronary heart disease (CHD) challenge health care to provide systematic and long-lasting disease management. In this study of patients who were revascularized, we examine whether treatment pathways leading to coronary revascularisation differ between patients with and without diabetes.
methodsThis retrospective, nationwide register-based study in Finland in 1998-2007 describes temporal trends in the proportions of 1) revascularisations performed at the first treatment period, and 2) suboptimal treatment pathways to revascularisations, i.e. pathways containing several cardiac emergency hospitalisations. Differences between patient groups were examined using a logistic regression model adjusting for age, comorbidity, and region.
resultsAmong patients who underwent revascularisation, upward trends were found in the proportions of revascularisations performed during first hospital admission: among men with CHD alone, the percentages were 28% in 1998 and 77% in 2007; among men with insulin-dependent diabetes (IDD) they were 16% vs. 58% for the respective years; and among men with non-insulin dependent diabetes (NIDD) they were 25% vs. 69%, respectively. Among women the percentages were for non-diabetic group 32% vs. 77%; for IDD group 36% vs. 64%; and for NIDD group 33% vs. 73% for the respective years. Patients with diabetes were less likely to undergo revascularisation during the first hospital admission, in 2005-2007, the odds ratio (OR) for IDD among men was 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.42-0.64) and for NIDD among men it was 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.86) compared to patients with CHD alone. The respective ORs among women were 0.59 (95% CI 0.44-0.78), and 0.83 (95% CI 0.74-0.93).
conclusionsTreatment practices changed substantially during the study period to favour performing revascularisation during the first hospital admission. The large increase in coronary angioplasty operations is likely to be an important factor behind these changes. However, fewer operations are performed during the first CHD hospitalisation of diabetic patients who undergo coronary revascularisation and they experience more often emergency hospital admissions before the operation than patients without diabetes. To avoid adverse cardiac events, more attention is needed in managing diabetic CHD patients' referral pathways to revascularisation.
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.