SynthesisThe Journal of cardiovascular nursing
Public Reporting of Cardiac Outcomes for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.
Synthesis in The Journal of cardiovascular nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hematopoietic cell transplantation soon after first relapse in acute myeloid leukemia - the PROS.Haematologica · 2025Article
- Risk gene identification and support vector machine learning to construct an early diagnosis model of myocardial infarction.Molecular medicine reports · 2020Article
- Influence of Major Adverse Events on Procedural Selection for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking Program.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is recognized by both the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology as an optimal therapy to treat patients experiencing acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A health policy aimed at improving outcomes for the patient with AMI is public reporting of whether a patient received a PCI.
objectiveA systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effect of public reporting for patients with AMI, specifically for those patients who receive PCI.
methodsEMBASE, MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, Google Scholar, and PubMed were searched from inception through August 2017. Articles were selected for inclusion if researchers evaluated public reporting and included an outcome for whether a patient received a PCI during hospitalization for an AMI. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated, and findings were synthesized.
resultsEight studies of high methodological quality were included in the review. Most studies found that, in areas of public reporting, patients were less likely to undergo a PCI and high-risk patients did not undergo a PCI. Researchers also found that patients with AMI had lower in-hospital mortality after the implementation of public reporting, but only if these patients received a PCI.
conclusionsAlthough public reporting may have had intentions of improving care, there is strong evidence that this policy did not result in more timely PCIs or improved mortality of patients with AMI. In fact, public reporting resulted in unintended consequences of not providing care for the most vulnerable patients in fear of an adverse outcome.
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.