ReviewJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2016
Measuring quality in electrophysiology.
Review in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Feasibility of Self-Reported Surveillance After Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Using A Mobile Application.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Complications of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Comparison of Safety Outcomes from Real-world Studies and Clinical Trials.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2022Review
- Public reporting on cardiac electrophysiology procedures and outcomes: where are we now and where are we headed?Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2019Article
- Introduction: health policy II. A new era of heath policy in electrophysiology and cardiology.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2016Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The evolving healthcare environment demands optimally measured quality of care. Performance measures are increasingly being used for quality improvement, public reporting, and reimbursement determinations. The National Quality Forum has created rigorous criteria for the evaluation of potential performance measures across medical fields. The Heart Rhythm Society has championed the development of four separate electrophysiology (EP)-specific performance measures: implantable cardioverter defibrillator complication rate, cardiac tamponade and/or pericardiocentesis following atrial fibrillation ablation, infection within 180 days of a cardiac implantable electronic device implantation, replacement, or revision, and in-person evaluation following a cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. National registries serve a key role in developing performance measures and facilitating quality improvement, particularly as they provide improved granularity and accuracy of data compared with administrative claims data. All performance measures demand continued reassessment as technology and performance gaps change and as unintended consequences may arise.
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.