Observational studyBMJ open2018
Effects of managed care on the proportion of inappropriate elective diagnostic coronary angiographies in non-emergency patients in Switzerland: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the guideline-adherence of coronary angiography in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome - Results from the German prospective multicentre ENLIGHT-KHK project.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveGuidelines recommend non-invasive ischaemia testing (NIIT) for the majority of patients with suspected ischaemic heart disease in a non-emergency setting. A substantial number of these patients undergo diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) without therapeutic intervention inappropriately due to lacking preceding NIIT. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of voluntary healthcare models with limited access on the proportion of patients without NIIT prior to elective purely diagnostic CA.
designRetrospective cross-sectional analysis of insurance claims data from 2012 to 2015. Data included claims of basic and voluntary healthcare models from approximately 1.2 million patients enrolled with the Helsana Insurance Group. Voluntary healthcare models with limited health access are divided into gate keeping (GK) and managed care (MC) capitation models. INCLUSION CRITERIA: patients undergoing CA. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients<18 years, incomplete health insurance data coverage, acute cardiac ischaemia and emergency procedures, therapeutic CA (coronary angioplasty/stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting). The effect of voluntary healthcare models on the proportion of NIIT undertaken within 2 months before diagnostic CA was assessed by means of multiple logistic regression analysis, controlled for influencing factors.
results9173 patients matched inclusion criteria. 33.2% (3044) did not receive NIIT before CA. Compared with basic healthcare models, MC was independently associated with a higher proportion of NIIT (p<0.001, OR 1.17, CI 1.045 to 1.312), when additionally controlled for demographics, insurance coverage, inpatient treatment, cardiovascular medication, chronic comorbidities, high-risk status (patients with therapeutic cardiac intervention 1 month after or 18 months prior to diagnostic CA). GK models showed no significant association with the rate of NIIT (p=0.07, OR 1.11, CI 0.991 to 1.253).
conclusionsIn a non-GK healthcare system, voluntary MC healthcare models with capitation were associated with a reduced inappropriate use of diagnostic CA compared with GK or basic models.
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.