ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2013
Assessment of the adherence of cardiologists to guidelines for the treatment of atrial fibrillation.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2013. 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.
- Cardiovascular Statistics - Brazil 2021.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022Article
- Cardiovascular Statistics - Brazil 2020.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
- Use of Guidelines for Reducing Stroke Risk in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Review From a Latin American Perspective.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis · 2018Review
- Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Focus on Latin America.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2016Review
- Factors in Deciding between Novel and Traditional Oral Anticoagulants to Prevent Embolism in Atrial Fibrillation Patients.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2016Article
- Selective anti-proliferation of HER2-positive breast cancer cells by anthocyanins identified by high-throughput screening.PloS one · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo local studies evaluating the knowledge of cardiologists on the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) and their adherence to these guidelines are available.
objectiveTo evaluate the knowledge of cardiologists on the guidelines and clinical practices for the treatment of AF, correlating it to the time since medical graduation.
methodsCross-sectional study randomly including cardiologists affiliated to the Society of Cardiology of the State of Rio Grande do Sul (Sociedade de Cardiologia do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul - SOCERGS). The physicians were divided into two groups, according to time since graduation: those graduated for more (G1) or less (G2) than 25 years.
resultsOf the 859 SOCERGS members, 150 were interviewed, and six refused to participate in the study. G1 comprised 71 physicians, and G2, 73. Differences were observed in regard to the following variables: use of betablockers as the first-choice drug for the control of AF response in 59.2% (G1) vs 91.8% (G2) (p<0.0001); use of digoxin as the preferred drug for the control of AF response in 19.7% (G1) vs 0% (G2) (p< 0.0001); warfarin as the preferred anticoagulant in 71.8% (G1) vs 93.2% (G2) (p=0.009); application of a risk score for anticoagulation in 73.2% (G1) vs 87.7% (G2) (p=0.02). In questions regarding the knowledge about the Brazilian Society of Cardiology's guideline for AF, the overall percentage of right answers was 82.3%.
conclusionMost of the clinical measures regarding the management of AF comply with the guidelines, and the clinical practice differs according with the time since graduation.
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.