Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24671699›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2014

Clinician-dependent variations in inappropriate use of myocardial perfusion imaging: training, specialty, and location.

David E Winchester, Joseph Hymas, Ryan Meral, Daniel Nguyen, Raman Dusaj, Leslee J Shaw, Rebecca J Beyth

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Outcomes after inappropriate nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging: A meta-analysis.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016
    Review
  6. Review of cardiovascular imaging in The Journal of Nuclear Cardiology in 2014: Part 2 of 2: Myocardial perfusion imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2015
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

David E WinchesterMalcom Randall VA Medical Center, 1601 SW Archer Rd 111D, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA, david.winchester@va.gov.
Joseph Hymas
Ryan Meral
Daniel Nguyen
Raman Dusaj
Leslee J Shaw
Rebecca J Beyth

Funding

STUDENTS IN HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLST35HL007489 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Scott A Berceli, Robert Maile · 1985 to 2026
$2.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS T35-HL007489-28
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInappropriate use of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) may vary depending on the training, specialty, or practice location of the clinician.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional investigation of consecutive patients who underwent MPI at our Veterans Affairs medical center between December 2010 and July 2011. Characteristics of the MPI ordering clinicians were extracted to investigate any associations with inappropriate use.

results582 patients were included, 9.8% were inappropriate. No difference in inappropriate use was observed between cardiology and non-cardiology clinicians (n = 21, 9.5% vs n = 36, 10.0%, P = .83); no difference was noted between nurse practitioners/physician assistants, attending physicians, and housestaff (7.5% vs 11.2% vs 1.8%, P = .06). Comparing inpatient, emergency department and outpatient clinician groups, the difference was null (8.6% vs 6.3% vs 10.1%, P = .75). For most clinician groups, the most common inappropriate indication was an asymptomatic scenario; however, some groups were different: definite acute coronary syndrome for inpatient clinicians and low risk syncope for emergency medicine clinicians.

conclusionsClinician groups appear to order inappropriate MPI at similar rates, regardless of their training, specialty, or practice location. Differences in the most common type of inappropriate testing suggest that interventions to reduce inappropriate use should be tailored to specific clinician types.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overClinical CompetenceCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleFloridaHospital DepartmentsHumansMaleMedical StaffMedicineMiddle AgedMyocardial Perfusion ImagingObserver VariationPractice Patterns, Physicians'

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.