ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2019
Perceptions of Public and Nonpublic Reporting of Interventional Cardiology Outcomes and Its Impact on Practice: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variation in Likelihood of Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Among US Hospitals.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Contemporary Risk Models for In-Hospital and 30-Day Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Impact of Operator Volumes and Experience on Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting and Tracking (CART) Program.Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2022Article
- Perceptions of Public and Nonpublic Reporting of Interventional Cardiology Outcomes and Its Impact on Practice: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Article
- Influence of Major Adverse Events on Procedural Selection for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking Program.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsArticle
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Physicians have expressed significant mistrust with public reporting of interventional cardiology outcomes. Similar data are not available on alternative reporting structures, including nonpublic quality improvement programs with internally distributed measures of interventional quality. We thus sought to evaluate the perceptions of public and nonpublic reporting of interventional cardiology outcomes and its impact on clinical practice. Methods and Results A standardized survey was distributed to 218 interventional cardiologists in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, with responses received from 62 (28%). The majority of respondents (90%) expressed some or a great deal of trust in the analytic methods used to generate reports in a nonpublic quality improvement system within Veterans Affairs, while a minority (35%) expressed similar trust in the analytic methods in a public reporting system that operates outside Veterans Affairs (
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.