ArticleClinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology2016
Implementation of a Screening Program for Patients at Risk for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
Article in Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImplantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are known to be associated with significant cardiac-specific mortality. Clinical observations suggest that PTSD is frequently undetected in ICD recipients followed up at electrophysiology (EP) outpatient clinics. Early recognition of PTSD is important to reduce the risk of serious manifestations on patient outcomes.
methodsAll ICD recipients aged 19 years or older at the Washington University School of Medicine (WASHU) EP clinic, a large urban EP clinic, were invited to participate in the project. An informed consent letter with an attached primary care: posttraumatic stress disorder (PC: PTSD) survey was offered to the participants who met the inclusion criteria. Those who completed the survey were included in the project. Individuals with positive survey result were offered a referral to mental health services. Comparisons between PTSD and non-PTSD patients were done using a two-sample t-test for continuous variables. Using Fisher's exact test, PTSD prevalence was compared to the study by Ladwig et al in which prevalence was determined as the proportion of patients with positive findings of PTSD (n = 38/147). All analyses were conducted using SAS v9.4. The proportion of patients having PTSD was determined and an exact 95% confidence interval was evaluated based on the binomial distribution.
resultsUsing a convenience sample, 50 ICD recipients (33 males and 17 females) were enrolled. The project had a 30-day outcome period. Nine (18%) of the 50 participants had positive PC: PTSD findings and all these nine participants were referred to a mental health specialist. The current project demonstrated an 18% (9/50) PTSD prevalence rate when compared to a 26% (38/147) prevalence rate in the study by Ladwig et al (P = 0.34). Although this project did not demonstrate 20% PTSD prevalence rate, as hypothesized, the 18% PTSD prevalence rate is consistent with previous research.
conclusionThe prevalence of PTSD noted in the current project is consistent with previous research and validates underrecognition of PTSD in ICD patients. Offering a referral to all ICD recipients at EP clinic visits with a positive PC: PTSD screening to a mental health specialist is an important step in reducing the risk of serious manifestations on patient outcomes.
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.