Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26573578›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular ultrasound2015

Assessment of inpatient multimodal cardiac imaging appropriateness at large academic medical centers.

Andrew Remfry, Howard Abrams, David M Dudzinski, Rory B Weiner, R Sacha Bhatia

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular ultrasound, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

5 authors.

Andrew RemfryUniversity of Toronto Medical School, Medical Sciences Building, 1 King's College Circle, Toronto, M5S 1A8, Canada.
Howard AbramsUniversity of Toronto Medical School, Medical Sciences Building, 1 King's College Circle, Toronto, M5S 1A8, Canada.
David M DudzinskiMassachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Sreet, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Rory B WeinerMassachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Sreet, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
R Sacha BhatiaUniversity of Toronto Medical School, Medical Sciences Building, 1 King's College Circle, Toronto, M5S 1A8, Canada. sacha.r.bhatia@wchospital.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResponding to concerns regarding the growth of cardiac testing, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) published Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for various cardiac imaging modalities. Single modality cardiac imaging appropriateness has been reported but there have been no studies assessing the appropriateness of multiple imaging modalities in an inpatient environment.

methodsA retrospective study of the appropriateness of cardiac tests ordered by the inpatient General Internal Medicine (GIM) and Cardiology services at three Canadian academic hospitals was conducted over two one-month periods. Cardiac tests characterized were transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), single-photon emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT), and diagnostic cardiac catheterization.

resultsOverall, 553 tests were assessed, of which 99.8% were classifiable by AUC. 91% of all studies were categorized as appropriate, 4% may be appropriate and 5% were rarely appropriate. There were high rates of appropriate use of all modalities by GIM and Cardiology throughout. Significantly more appropriate diagnostic catheterizations were ordered by Cardiology than GIM (93% vs. 82%, p = <0.01). Cardiology ordered more appropriate studies overall (94% vs. 88%, p = 0.03) but there was no difference in the rate of rarely appropriate studies (3% vs. 6%, p = 0.23).

conclusionThe ACCF AUC captured the vast majority of clinical scenarios for multiple cardiac imaging modalities in this multi-centered study on Cardiology and GIM inpatients in the acute care setting. The rate of appropriate ordering was high across all imaging modalities. We recommend further work towards improving appropriate utilization of cardiac imaging resources focus on the out-patient setting.

Indexed as

Utilization ReviewAcademic Medical CentersCanadaCardiac Imaging TechniquesHospitalizationMedical OveruseMultimodal Imaging

Identifiers

PMID26573578
PMCPMC4647603

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.