ArticleBMJ open2014
Evaluation of long-term clinical and health service outcomes following coronary artery revascularisation in Western Australia (WACARP): a population-based cohort study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Risk of Adverse Cardiac Events after Pneumonia in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Article
- Underuse of Oral Anticoagulants and Inappropriate Prescription of Antiplatelet Therapy in Older Inpatients with Atrial Fibrillation.Drugs & aging · 2017Article
- Impact of Physician-Coordinated Intensive Follow-Up on Long-Term Medical Costs in Patients with Unstable Angina Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are procedures commonly performed on patients with significant obstructive coronary artery disease to relieve symptoms of ischaemia, improve survival or both. Although the efficacy of both procedures at the individual level has been established, the impact of advances in coronary artery revascularisation procedures (CARP) on long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness at the population level are yet to be assessed. Our aim is to evaluate a minimum of 6-year outcomes and costs for the total population of patients who had CARP in Western Australia (WA) in 2000-2005. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This retrospective population cohort study will link clinical and administrative health data for a previously defined cohort including all patients in WA who had a CARP in the period 2000-2005. The cohort consists of 19,014 patients who had 21,175 procedures (15,429 PCI and 5746 CABG). We are now collecting a minimum of 6 years follow-up of morbidity and mortality data for the cohort using the WA Data Linkage System, clinical registries and hospital records, with 12 years follow-up for cases in the year 2000. Comparison of long-term outcomes for different CARP will be reported (PCI vs CABG; bare metal stents vs drug-eluting stents vs CABG). Cost-effectiveness analysis of CARP from the perspective of the healthcare sector will be performed using individual level cost data and average costs from Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethics approval from the University of Western Australia, the Western Australian Department of Health and all participating hospitals. Being a large population cohort study, approval included a waiver of informed consent. All findings will be presented at local, national and international healthcare/academic conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.
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.