ReviewGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2013
Cardiac surgical patients are not the same. But who knows that: the patient, the cardiologist or the surgeon?
Review in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2013. 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.
- Emergent aortic surgery in octogenarians: is the advanced age a contraindication?Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nowadays, outcome measures get published following risk adjustment; mortality rates are adjusted for risks to give a picture of the performance of a surgeon or a unit. The risk factors associated with in-hospital death are likely to reflect concurrent disease-specific variables. Factors associated with increased resource utilisation (as measured by length of stay) reflect serious co-morbid illness. The various models are effective at predicting population behaviour, but not necessarily suited for predicting individual outcomes. Further work needs to be done both to explain the differences in risk factors seen between the various risk stratification models and to determine which models are best suited in clinical practice. This document reviews the current evidence and risk stratification tools currently employed in cardiac surgery practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24163259What 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.