ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2014
Inappropriate utilization of SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging on the USA-Mexico border.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Appropriate Use of Cardiac Stress Testing with Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Why do they do it? A grounded theory study of the use of low-value care among primary health care physicians.Implementation science : IS · 2020Article
- Outcomes after inappropriate nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging: A meta-analysis.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016Review
- The value and appropriateness of positron emission tomography: an evolving tale.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2015Article
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
backgroundThe American College of Cardiology/American Society of Nuclear Cardiology published revised appropriate use criteria (AUC) for SPECT MPI in 2009. We assessed adherence to these guidelines and factors associated with inappropriate utilization at the University Medical Center.
methodsThe AUC was applied retrospectively to 420 SPECT MPI studies. Two-sample t test, Fisher's exact test, and multivariable logistic regression models were used for analysis.
resultsThere were 322 appropriate (86%) and 54 (14%) inappropriate studies. The odds of having an inappropriate test increased with younger age (P < .001) and female gender (P < .001). Subjects with diabetes (P = .007) and chest pain (P < .001) were less likely to have an inappropriate test. Academic outpatients were three times more likely to have an inappropriate study (P = .123), while community PCPs were 5.6 times (P = .011) and community cardiologists eight times more likely to order inappropriate tests (P = .031).
conclusionsInappropriate SPECT MPI in low risk younger women is an important issue on the USA-Mexico border. Initiatives to reduce inappropriate SPECT MPI should focus on a few indications and evaluation of cardiovascular symptoms in younger age women in outpatient/community practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24627346What 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.