ReviewPediatric cardiology2020
Registries, Risk Calculators, and Risk-Adjusted Outcomes: Current Usage, Limitations, and Future Prospects.
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 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.
- Congenital Cardiac Catheterization in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: The International Quality Improvement Collaborative Catheterization Registry.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
- Prevention of Prosthetic Joint Infection: From Traditional Approaches towards Quality Improvement and Data Mining.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Small study sizes are a limiting factor in assessing outcome measures in pediatric cardiology. It is even more difficult to assess the outcomes of congenital catheterizations where the sample sizes are even smaller, particularly on a individual institutional level. The creation of multicenter registries is a method by which investigators can pool data to better assess quality and outcome measures of these procedures. No registry is perfect with several being available today, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. In addition, there are a multitude of methods currently used to assess quality and outcomes from the data contained in these registries, each having its own limitations as well. Nonetheless, multicenter registrities remain one of the best available options to improve the quality of care for pediatric interventional cardiac catheterization. Below, we provide an overview of the current state of quality assessment/improvement in pediatric interventional cardiology including a review of the available registrities and the metrics used to measure quality of care and outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32198591What 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.