ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2020
European survey on acute coronary syndrome diagnosis and revascularisation treatment: Assessing differences in reported clinical practice with a focus on strategies for specific patient cases.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- HDL-Based Therapy: Vascular Protection at All Stages.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- European survey on acute coronary syndrome diagnosis and revascularisation treatment: Assessing differences in reported clinical practice with a focus on strategies for specific patient cases.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND
objectivesWhile different imaging and treatment options are available in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) care, there is a lack of data regarding their use across Europe. We examined the diagnostic and treatment strategies in patients with known or suspected ACS as reported by physicians and identified variations in responses across European countries and geographical areas.
methodA web-based clinician survey focusing on ACS imaging and revascularization treatments was circulated through email distribution lists and websites of European professional societies in the field of cardiology. We collected information on respondents' clinical setting and specialty. Reported percentages of patients receiving imaging or treatment modalities and percentages of clinicians reporting to use modalities in a range of clinical scenarios were analyzed. Statistical comparisons were performed.
resultsIn total, 69 responses were received (Sweden [n = 20], United Kingdom [n = 16], Northern/Western Europe [n = 17], Southern Europe [n = 9], and Central Europe [n = 7]). Considerable variations between geographical areas were seen in terms of reported diagnostic modalities and treatment strategies. For example, when presented with the scenario of a theoretical 45-year-old smoking female with a suspected ACS, 56% of UK clinicians reported to use coronary computed tomography angiography, compared to only 10% of Swedish clinicians (P = .002). Large variations were observed regarding the reported use of fractional flow reserve by physicians for non-culprit lesions during invasive management of myocardial infarction patients (44% in Sweden, 31% in the United Kingdom, and 30% in Northern/Western Europe vs non-use in Central and Southern Europe).
conclusionsIn this survey, respondents reported different diagnostic and treatment strategies in ACS care. These variations seem to have geographic components. Larger studies or real world data are needed to verify these observations and investigate their causes. More research is needed to compare the quality and efficiency of ACS care across countries and explore pathways for improvement.
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.