ArticlePediatric cardiology2018
Prospective Analysis of Decision Making During Joint Cardiology Cardiothoracic Conference in Treatment of 107 Consecutive Children with Congenital Heart Disease.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decision analytic investigations comparing balloon aortic valvuloplasty and surgical valvotomy in neonates with isolated critical aortic stenosis.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- What Makes an Effective Chief of Pediatric Cardiology: Insights from Chiefs of Programs Globally.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Practice Patterns in Pediatric Cardiothoracic Presurgical Conferences: A Multicenter Survey Study.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Teamwork as a Clinical Competency in Pediatric Cardiology: A Measurement-Feedback-Simulation Framework for Improving Decision-Making and Outcomes.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Review
- Article
- Candidacy Decisions for Long-term Ventilation.Pediatrics · 2024Article
- What Makes an Effective Chief of Pediatric Cardiology: Insights From Chiefs of North American Pediatric Programs.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- How Do Paediatricians Manage Comfort with Uncertainty in Clinical Decision-Making.Perspectives on medical education · 2024Article
- Zoom and its Discontents: Group Decision Making in Pediatric Cardiology in the Time of COVID (and Beyond) : Aurthors.Journal of medical systems · 2023Review
- Medical education and training within congenital cardiology: current global status and future directions in a post COVID-19 world.Cardiology in the young · 2022Review
- Decision-Making in the Catheter Laboratory: The Most Important Variable in Successful Outcomes.Pediatric cardiology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The complexity and potential biases involved in decision making have long been recognised and examined in both the aviation and business industries. More recently, the medical community have started to explore this concept and its particular importance in our field. Paediatric cardiology is a rapidly expanding field and for many of the conditions we treat, there is limited evidence available to support our decision-making. Variability exists within decision-making in paediatric cardiology and this may influence outcomes. There are no validated tools available to support and examine consistent decision-making for various treatment strategies in children with congenital heart disease in a multidisciplinary cardiology and cardiothoracic institution. Our primary objective was to analyse the complexity of decision-making for children with cardiac conditions in the context of our joint cardiology and cardiothoracic conference (JCC). Two paediatric cardiologists acted as investigators by observing the weekly joint cardiology-cardiothoracic surgery conference and prospectively evaluating the degree of complexity of decision-making in the management of 107 sequential children with congenital heart disease discussed. Additionally, the group consensus on the same patients was prospectively assessed to compare this to the independent observers. Of 107 consecutive children discussed at our JCC conference 32 (27%) went on to receive surgical intervention, 20 (17%) underwent catheterisation and 65 (56%) received medical treatment. There were 53 (50%) cases rated as simple by one senior observer, while 54 (50%) were rated as complex to some degree. There was high inter-observer agreement with a Krippendorff's alpha of ≥ 0.8 between 2 observers and between 2 observers and the group consensus as a whole for grading of the complexity of decision-making. Different decisions were occasionally made on patients with the same data set. Discussions revisiting the same patient, in complex cases, resulted in different management decisions being reached in this series. Anchoring of decision-making was witnessed in certain cases. Potential application of decision making algorithms is discussed in making decisions in paediatric cardiology patients. Decision-making in our institution's joint cardiology-cardiothoracic conference proved to be complex in approximately half of our patients. Inconsistency in decision-making for patients with the same diagnosis, and different decisions made for the same complex patient at different time points confounds the reliability of the decision-making process. These novel data highlight the absence of evidence-based medicine for many decisions, occasional lack of consistency and the impact of anchoring, heuristics and other biases in complex cases. Validated decision-making algorithms may assist in providing consistency to decision-making in this setting.
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.