Decision-making preferences among patients with an acute myocardial infarction.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Variation in patients' perceptions of elective percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease: cross sectional study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2014
   Trial
2. Patient perspectives on engagement in decision-making in early management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: a qualitative study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017
   Article
3. Clinician-patient risk discussion for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention: importance to implementation of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2015
   Review
4. Variations in health care, patient preferences, and high-quality decision making.JAMA · 2013
   Article
5. Patient and physician perspectives on shared decision-making for coronary procedures in people with chronic kidney disease: a patient-oriented qualitative study.CMAJ open
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Shared decision making.2013

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as