ArticleMedical care2016
Practice Variation Among Hospitals in Revascularization Therapy and Its Association With Procedure-related Mortality.
Article in Medical care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile substantial practice variation in coronary revascularization has been described and deviation from clinical practice guidelines has been associated with worse outcomes, the degree to which this is driven by flawed decision making and/or appropriate deviation associated with comorbid conditions is unknown. We evaluated heterogeneity in procedure use, and the extent to which hospital-level practice variation is related to surgical mortality.
methodsWe analyzed data on 554,563 inpatients undergoing either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting at 391 centers in 6 states. Procedure-specific risk models were developed based on demographics and comorbidities, allowing for differential effects of comorbidities for each sex. For each patient, the revascularization procedure that minimized predicted probability of inhospital mortality was designated as the model-preferred procedure.Hospital-level discordance rates-the proportion of cases in each hospital for which the opposite from the model-preferred procedure was performed-were calculated. Hierarchical linear models were used to analyze the relationship between HDRs and hospital-level risk-standardized mortality ratios (RSMRs).
resultsComorbidities and demographics alone explained between 68% and 86% of overall variation in inhospital mortality (corresponding C-statistics of 0.84-0.93). The mean (SD) HDR was 26.3% (9.6%). There was a positive independent association between HDRs and inhospital mortality, with a 10% increase in HDR associated with an 11% increase in RSMR (P<0.001).
conclusionsVariance in procedure use according to model preference was strongly associated with worse outcomes. A systematic approach to incorporating comorbidity as part of the decision-making process for coronary revascularization is needed.
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.