ArticleTransactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association2019
THE HIGH COST OF LOW VALUE CARE.
Article in Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, 2019. 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.
- What can we learn from the SARS-COV-2 pandemic about the value of specific radiological examinations?BMC health services research · 2021Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The main focus of this study is bridging the "evidence gap" between frontline decision-making in health care and the actual evidence, with the hope of reducing unnecessary diagnostic testing and treatments. From our work in pulmonary embolism (PE) and over ordering of computed tomography pulmonary angiography, we integrated the highly validated Wells' criteria into the electronic health record at two of our major academic tertiary hospitals. The Wells' clinical decision support tool triggered for patients being evaluated for PE and therefore determined a patients' pretest probability for having a PE. There were 12,759 patient visits representing 11,836 patients, 51% had no D-dimer, 41% had a negative D-dimer, and 9% had a positive D-dimer. Our study gave us an opportunity to determine which patients were very low probabilities for PE, with no need for further testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31516165PMC6735996What 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.