Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31588598›Full record

SynthesisJournal of advanced nursing2020

Outcomes of nurse practitioner-led care in patients with cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Marcie J Smigorowsky, Meghan Sebastianski, Michael Sean McMurtry, Ross T Tsuyuki, Colleen M Norris

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of advanced nursing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcie J SmigorowskyMazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6092-0990
Meghan SebastianskiDepartment of Pediatrics, Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research SUPPORT Unit, Knowledge Translation Platform, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5206-8731
Michael Sean McMurtryDivision of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9912-2136
Ross T TsuyukiMazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3724-598X
Colleen M NorrisFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6793-9333
University of Alberta · CACanadian VIGOUR Centre · CA

Funding

Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) SUPPORT Unit Knowledge Translation Program Dr. Meghan Sebastianski's salary is paid by SPOR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo assess randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of nurse practitioner-led cardiovascular care.

backgroundSystematic review of nurse practitioner-led care in patients with cardiovascular disease has not been completed.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and ProQuest were systematically searched for studies published between January 2007 - June 2017. REVIEW

methodsCochrane methodology was used for risk of bias, data extraction and meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

resultsOut of 605 articles, five articles met the inclusion criteria. There was no statistical difference between nurse practitioner-led care and usual care for 30-day readmissions, health-related quality of life and length of stay. A 12% reduction in Framingham risk score was identified.

conclusionThere are a few randomized control trials assessing nurse practitioner-led cardiovascular care. IMPACT: Low to moderate quality evidence was identified with no statistically significant associated outcomes of care. Nurse practitioner roles need to be supported to conduct and publish high-quality research.

Indexed as

Nurse PractitionersOutcome Assessment, Health CareCardiovascular DiseasesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topiccardiovascular careclinical interventionmeta-analysisnursenurse practitioneroutcomes of carerandomized control trialsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31588598
PMCPMC6973236
OpenAlexW2979454928

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.