Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28692719›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2017

Electrocardiograms in Low-Risk Patients Undergoing an Annual Health Examination.

R Sacha Bhatia, Zachary Bouck, Noah M Ivers, Graham Mecredy, Jasjit Singh, Ciara Pendrith, Dennis T Ko, Danielle Martin, Harindra C Wijeysundera, Jack V Tu and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Where U.S. Women Receive Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

R Sacha BhatiaInstitute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Zachary BouckInstitute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Noah M IversInstitute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Graham MecredyInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jasjit SinghUniversity of Ottawa Medical School, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ciara PendrithCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Dennis T KoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Danielle MartinInstitute for Health Systems Solutions and Virtual Care, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Harindra C WijeysunderaInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jack V TuInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Lynn WilsonDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kimberly WintemuteDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Paul DorianDivision of Cardiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Joshua TepperDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Peter C AustinInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Richard H GlazierDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wendy LevinsonCentre for Urban Health Solutions, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Toronto · CAInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAWomen's College Hospital · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Clinical guidelines advise against routine electrocardiograms (ECG) in low-risk, asymptomatic patients, but the frequency and impact of such ECGs are unknown. Objective: To assess the frequency of ECGs following an annual health examination (AHE) with a primary care physician among patients with no known cardiac conditions or risk factors, to explore factors predictive of receiving an ECG in this clinical scenario, and to compare downstream cardiac testing and clinical outcomes in low-risk patients who did and did not receive an ECG after their AHE. Design, Setting, and Participants: A population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative health care databases from Ontario, Canada, between 2010/2011 and 2014/2015 to identify low-risk primary care patients and to assess the subsequent outcomes of interest in this time frame. All patients 18 years or older who had no prior cardiac medical history or risk factors who received an AHE. Exposures: Receipt of an ECG within 30 days of an AHE. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was receipt of downstream cardiac testing or consultation with a cardiologist. Secondary outcomes were death, hospitalization, and revascularization at 12 months. Results: A total of 3 629 859 adult patients had at least 1 AHE between fiscal years 2010/2011 and 2014/2015. Of these patients, 21.5% had an ECG within 30 days after an AHE. The proportion of patients receiving an ECG after an AHE varied from 1.8% to 76.1% among 679 primary care practices (coefficient of quartile dispersion [CQD], 0.50) and from 1.1% to 94.9% among 8036 primary care physicians (CQD, 0.54). Patients who had an ECG were significantly more likely to receive additional cardiac tests, visits, or procedures than those who did not (odds ratio [OR], 5.14; 95% CI, 5.07-5.21; P < .001). The rates of death (0.19% vs 0.16%), cardiac-related hospitalizations (0.46% vs 0.12%), and coronary revascularizations (0.20% vs 0.04%) were low in both the ECG and non-ECG cohorts. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite recommendations to the contrary, ECG testing after an AHE is relatively common, with significant variation among primary care physicians. Routine ECG testing seems to increase risk for a subsequent cardiology testing and consultation cascade, even though the overall cardiac event rate in both groups was very low.

Indexed as

Heart DiseasesAdultAgedCanadaElectrocardiographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Primary Health CareReferral and ConsultationRisk AssessmentUnnecessary Procedures

Identifiers

PMID28692719
PMCPMC5710571
OpenAlexW2735530767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.