Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29626016›Full record

ArticleClinical medicine (London, England)2018

One year's activity and outcome data from an ambulatory cardiology unit.

Jill Byrne, Damian McCall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jill ByrneBelfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK.
Damian McCallBelfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2015, the Belfast Trust piloted an ambulatory cardiology unit (ACU). The ethos of the ACU was to reduce pressure on the Emergency Department by providing a unit where rapid evaluation, treatment and follow-up could be provided by the cardiology team and, at the same time, reduce inpatient admissions to cardiology beds. The service proved effective in reducing admissions to cardiology beds by 13.5% over a 1-year period, while patient outcomes at 30 days and 6 months demonstrated that the service is safe, with only 1.7% of patients readmitted at 30 days and 6 months with the same or a related complaint. The principles of ACU could be adopted by many other specialities.

Indexed as

AgedAmbulatory CareCardiac Care FacilitiesDelivery of Health CareEmergency Medical ServicesHeart DiseasesHumansMiddle AgedPatient AdmissionTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdomambulatory careAmbulatory emergency careemergency careoutcomes

Identifiers

PMID29626016
PMCPMC6303453

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.