Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31304365›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2019

Impact of predictive medicine on therapeutic decision making: a randomized controlled trial in congenital heart disease.

Huseyin Naci, Maximilian Salcher-Konrad, Alistair Mcguire, Felix Berger, Titus Kuehne, Leonid Goubergrits, Vivek Muthurangu, Ben Wilson, Marcus Kelm

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A systematic review of cardiacProgress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Huseyin Naci1LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Maximilian Salcher-Konrad1LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Alistair Mcguire1LSE Health, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Felix Berger2German Heart Institute Berlin (DHZB), Berlin, Germany.
Titus Kuehne2German Heart Institute Berlin (DHZB), Berlin, Germany.
Leonid GoubergritsInstitute for Computational and Imaging Science in Cardiovascular Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Vivek Muthurangu6Great Ormond Street Hospital, University College London, London, UK.
Ben Wilson7Department of Sociology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Marcus Kelm2German Heart Institute Berlin (DHZB), Berlin, Germany.
London School of Economics and Political Science · GBBerlin Heart (Germany) · DEHumboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEGreat Ormond Street Hospital · GBStockholm University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational modelling has made significant progress towards clinical application in recent years. In addition to providing detailed diagnostic data, these methods have the potential to simulate patient-specific interventions and to predict their outcome. Our objective was to evaluate to which extent patient-specific modelling influences treatment decisions in coarctation of the aorta (CoA), a common congenital heart disease. We selected three cases with CoA, two of which had borderline indications for intervention according to current clinical guidelines. The third case was not indicated for intervention according to guidelines. For each case, we generated two separate datasets. First dataset included conventional diagnostic parameters (echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging). In the second, we added modelled parameters (pressure fields). For the two cases with borderline indications for intervention, the second dataset also included pressure fields after virtual stenting simulations. All parameters were computed by modelling methods that were previously validated. In an online-administered, invitation-only survey, we randomized 178 paediatric cardiologists to view either conventional (control) or add-on modelling (experimental) datasets. Primary endpoint was the proportion of participants recommending different therapeutic options: (1) surgery or catheter lab (collectively, "intervention") or (2) no intervention (follow-up with or without medication). Availability of data from computational predictive modelling influenced therapeutic decision making in two of three cases. There was a statistically significant association between group assignment and the recommendation of an intervention for one borderline case and one non-borderline case: 94.3% vs. 72.2% (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.14-1.50,

Indexed as

Congenital heart defectsHealth policy

Identifiers

PMID31304365
PMCPMC6550204
OpenAlexW2921492845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.