ArticleClinical cardiology2017
Appropriateness vs value: Echocardiography in primary care.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Regional variability of cardiovascular magnetic resonance access and utilization in the United States.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024Observational
- Combination of Tele-Cardiology Tools for Cardiovascular Risk Stratification in Primary Care: Data from the PROVAR+ Study.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- Deep Learning Algorithms to Detect Murmurs Associated With Structural Heart Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
- Fully automated quantification of cardiac chamber and function assessment in 2-D echocardiography: clinical feasibility of deep learning-based algorithms.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2022Article
- Appropriateness and subsequent management of inpatient echocardiograms: An evaluation of low value care.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2021Article
- Global evaluation of echocardiography in patients with COVID-19.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2020Article
- Patient screening for early detection of aortic stenosis (AS)-review of current practice and future perspectives.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Review
- Appropriateness vs value: Echocardiography in primary care.Clinical cardiology · 2017Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite efforts targeting the growth of healthcare spending within the United States, the current increase in expenditures remains a widespread systemic issue. The overuse of healthcare testing has previously been identified as a modifiable contributing factor. One such test, echocardiography, has seen a continuous increase in its rate of use. This test is frequently ordered by primary-care physicians. HYPOTHESIS: In the setting of a low likelihood of disease, echocardiography does not substantially change cardiac therapy, even if appropriately ordered.
methodsWe randomly identified 500 patients who received an echocardiogram ordered by a primary-care physician between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. Of these, 239 patient charts were reviewed and the following extracted: primary indication for the test, echocardiogram results, and changes in patient medical management. In addition, appropriateness of the test was assessed using the appropriate use criteria guidelines for echocardiography.
resultsNearly 97% of the studies within the ambulatory primary-care setting were appropriately ordered according to the appropriate use criteria. Among the 239 patients studied, only 52 had abnormalities and only 6 (2.5%) experienced a change in management that corresponded with the initial suspected diagnosis and echocardiographic findings.
conclusionsTo ensure the greatest value and optimize use of diagnostic testing, it may be necessary to develop a more comprehensive set of guidelines to assist clinicians to readily identify patient populations at low, moderate, and high risk for the presence of disease and provide educational interventions, including feedback regarding individual ordering behaviors.
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.