ReviewPediatric cardiology2020
Decision-Making in the Catheter Laboratory: The Most Important Variable in Successful Outcomes.
Review in Pediatric cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Teamwork as a Clinical Competency in Pediatric Cardiology: A Measurement-Feedback-Simulation Framework for Improving Decision-Making and Outcomes.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Review
- Prevention and Management of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Related Complications: Assessing the Impact of Simulation-Based Learning and Human Factors Training.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Increasingly the importance of how and why we make decisions in the medical arena has been questioned. Traditionally the aeronautical and business worlds have shed a light on this complex area of human decision-making. In this review we reflect on what we already know about the complexity of decision-making in addition to directing particular focus on the challenges to decision-making in the high-intensity environment of the pediatric cardiac catheterization laboratory. We propose that the most critical factor in outcomes for children in the catheterization lab may not be technical failures but rather human factors and the lack of preparation and robust shared decision-making process between the catheterization team. Key technical factors involved in the decision-making process include understanding the anatomy, the indications and objective to be achieved, equipment availability, procedural flow, having a back-up plan and post-procedural care plan. Increased awareness, pre-catheterization planning, use of standardized clinical assessment and management plans and artificial intelligence may provide solutions to pitfalls in decision-making. Further research and efforts should be directed towards studying the impact of human factors in the cardiac catheterization laboratory as well as the broader medical environment.
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.