ArticlePostgraduate medical journal2013
Failure to improve door-to-needle time by switching to emergency physician-initiated thrombolysis for ST elevation myocardial infarction.
Article in Postgraduate medical journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using evidence briefs to support future implementation planning: the case of early fibrinolysis for myocardial infarction and rehabilitation for the amputee patient in Colombia.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
- Barriers to timely treatment-seeking in patients with acute myocardial infarction in Malaysia: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2016Article
- Article
- Emergency department quality and safety indicators in resource-limited settings: an environmental survey.International journal of emergency medicine · 2015Article
- Management of acute coronary syndromes in a developing country; time for a paradigm shift? an observational study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2015Observational
- Management and outcomes of acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction at a tertiary-care hospital in Sri Lanka: an observational study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2015Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAchieving target door-needle times for ST elevation myocardial infarction remains challenging. Data on emergency department (ED) doctor-led thrombolysis in developing countries and factors causing delay are limited.
objectivesTo assess the effect on door-needle times by transferring responsibility for thrombolysis to the ED doctors and to identify predictors of prolonged door-needle times. METHODOLOGY: Data on medical on-call team-led thrombolysis at a tertiary Asian hospital were prospectively collected from May 2007 to Aug 2008 (1st study period). In September 2008, ED doctors were empowered to perform thrombolysis. The practice change was accompanied by new guidelines, tick chart implementation, and training sessions. Data were then consecutively collected from September 2008 to May 2009 (2nd study period). Door-to-needle times for the 1st and 2nd study periods were compared. All cases were analysed for factors of delay by multiple logistic regression.
results297 patients were thrombolysed, 169 by the medical on-call team during the 1st study period and 128 by the ED doctors during the 2nd study period. Median door-needle times were 54 and 48 min, respectively (p=0.76). Significant delays were predicted by 'incorrect initial ECG interpretation' (adjusted OR (aOR) 14.3), 'inappropriate triage' (aOR 10.4) and 'multiple referrals' (aOR 5.9). No cases of inappropriate thrombolysis were recorded.
conclusionsTransfer of responsibility for thrombolysis to the ED doctors did not improve door-needle times despite measures introduced to facilitate this change. Key causative factors for this failure were identified.
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.