ArticleBMJ open quality2020
A detailed analysis of patients included in the Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI) for myocardial infarction (MI)-all is not what it seems?
Article in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI) for Myocardial Infarction (MI) is the ratio of the observed to the expected number of deaths due to MI. We aimed to assess (1) the accuracy of MI as a diagnosis in the SHMI for MI and (2) the healthcare received by patients with type 1 MI included in the SHMI for MI.
methodsRetrospective review of patients included in SHMI for MI from April 2017 to March 2018. The diagnosis of MI was divided into type 1, type 2 and non-MI. For patients with type 1 MI who underwent intervention, we applied the prognostic Toronto Risk Score (TRS) and classified into group 0: score <13 (mortality risk 0%-4%, lowest risk), group 1: score 13-16 (mortality risk 6%-19.6%), group 2: score 17-19 (mortality risk 27.4%-47.6%) and group 3: score ≥20 (mortality risk 58%-92%). For patients with type 1 MI who underwent conservative management, we reviewed appropriateness of conservative management.
resultsSHMI for MI was 96 (41/42.83) falling to 65.4 with the inclusion of only type 1 MI (28 patients, 28/42.83). About 41.5% (n=17) underwent intervention of whom three were in the lowest risk TRS (group 0) and all received appropriate healthcare. Conservative management was appropriate for the 26.8% (n=11) treated medically, the most common reason was severe cognitive dysfunction.
conclusionsWe have demonstrated that SHMI for MI can be inaccurate due to the inclusion of type 2 MI or non-MI. Grouping patients into intervention versus conservative management helps in assessment of healthcare.
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.