ArticleInternational journal of integrated care2018
The Integrated Dyspnea Clinic: An Evaluation of Efficiency.
Article in International journal of integrated care, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clusters of medical specialties around patients with multimorbidity - employing fuzzy c-means clustering to explore multidisciplinary collaboration.BMC health services research · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDyspnea is a common complaint and in 70 to 90% the origin is pulmonary or cardiovascular. However, referral to the "wrong" specialism could result in diagnostic- and treatment delay. Integrated care by a cardiologist and a pulmonologist could improve this. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether integrated care for patients with dyspnea is more efficient and effective than regular care.
methodsConsecutive patients (n = 235) seen at our dyspnea clinic after June 2014 were included. Two patient groups were compared: 1) patients with an integrated consultation and 2) patients with a non-integrated consultation, who were seen by the cardiologist and the pulmonologist on separate occasions.
resultsThe median time until first diagnosis, final diagnosis and time needed for diagnostic workup was shorter for patients evaluated by a integrated consultation compared with patients with a non-integrated consultation for dyspnea (16 days vs. 37 days, p < 0.001; 51 days vs. 78 days, p < 0.001; 35 days vs. 67 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the majority of diagnostic tests used and final medical conclusions.
conclusionsPatients with dyspnea evaluated using integrated care were diagnosed almost one month faster than patients in regular care without affecting the type of medical conclusions made. This study supports the start of a dyspnea clinic as an efficient way to provide integrated care to patients with dyspnea. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Patients with dyspnea evaluated using integrated care where diagnosed one month faster than patients in regular care.
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.