ArticleAmerican journal of public health1990
Placing patients in the queue for coronary revascularization: evidence for practice variations from an expert panel process.
Article in American journal of public health, 1990. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- "They Are Not Going to Be Happy": An Ethnographic Study of the Prioritization of Patients Awaiting Elective Surgery in an Academic Hospital in the Netherlands.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Applying real-time Delphi methods: development of a pain management survey in emergency nursing.BMC nursing · 2021Article
- Matching treatment options for risk sub-groups in musculoskeletal pain: a consensus groups study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Article
- An experimental study of determinants of the extent of disagreement within clinical guideline development groups.Quality & safety in health care · 2005Article
- Risk of emergency admission while awaiting elective cholecystectomy.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2003Article
- Urgency and priority for cardiac surgery: a clinical judgment analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1998Review
- Predictors for waiting time for coronary angioplasty in a high risk population.Quality in health care : QHC · 1995Article
- Small-area variations: what are they and what do they mean? Health Services Research Group.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 1992Article
- Placing patients in the queue for coronary surgery: do age and work status alter Canadian specialists' decisions?Journal of general internal medicineArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A panel of 16 cardiologists and cardiac surgeons rated 438 case scenarios for the maximum acceptable delay prior to revascularization, using a scale with seven interventional time frames and two nodes for designating dubious or inappropriate cases. If consensus was defined as agreement by 12 or more panelists, only 1.4 percent of the case scenarios showed consensus on a single rating. Dividing the scale into three broad clinical categories (revascularize promptly, place on a waiting list, or no intervention), 11.4 percent of scenarios showed all 16 panelists agreeing on a single category, rising to 59.4 percent of scenarios if agreement by 12 panelists was accepted as a consensus. The mean difference between the panelists' highest and lowest urgency ratings yielded waiting time differences of two weeks for scenarios of very unstable angina, and more than three months for those with stable angina. However, in a regression model, individual panelist factors on average had less effect than clinical features such as severity and stability of angina, or stenosis of major coronary arteries. These findings strongly support the need for consensus criteria to ensure that triage practices are consistent and fair, and also suggest that widespread adoption of a standardized approach to revascularization priorities may be feasible.
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.