ArticleAtencion primaria2012
[Suitability and performance of echocardiogram in primary care].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2012. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Access to diagnostic technology by Primary Care doctors].Atencion primaria · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe echocardiogram (ECC) is not available to all Spanish General Practitioners (GP) despite its proven benefits in prevalent diseases, such as hypertension and heart failure. STUDY
objectiveTo analyse the clinical adequacy of the application, performance, and diagnostic and therapeutic decisions of ECC indicated by the GP.
designDescriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective, multicentre study.
settingPrimary care. Four health centres (HC).
participantsA total of 684 patients over 18 years who had an ECC performed in 2006-2007. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: A review of medical records and the ECC report. The socio-demographic variables, clinical and diagnostic performance were also evaluated.
resultsThe majority of patients (62.3%) were ≥ 65 years, of which 61.8% were female The most frequent reasons for performing ECC were (but not limited to): heart failure: 30%, suspected valvular disease: 26%; suspected cardiomyopathy: 24.3%. Adequacy of the ECC: 84% (95% CI: 81.09-86.7%) with differences by age (p=.02), HC teaching (p<.001), comorbidity (p<.001) and abnormal ECC (p<.001). A disease was found in 80% of ECC, with differences according to age (p<.001), comorbidity (p=0.02), cardiovascular risk factors (p<.001) and degree of appropriateness of ECC (p=.001). The most common findings (but not limited to) included: valvular heart disease (61.6%) left ventricular hypertrophy (43%) diastolic dysfunction (28.2%). The results of the ECC helped make decisions in 35.2%, with 17.1% referred to cardiology, 10.5% treatment change and 9.6% other tests.
conclusionsWe found that the application of ECC was highly appropriate. The results of ECC drive clinical decisions in a high percentage of cases. The ECC should be accessible to all GP.
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.