ArticlePloS one2020
Hospitalization outcome of heart diseases between patients who received medical care by cardiologists and non-cardiologist physicians: A propensity-score matched study.
Article in PloS one, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Consensus statement of the Austrian Society for Rheumatology and Rehabilitation on the management of increased cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthritis].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Exploring the availability of specialist health workforce education in East and Southern Africa: a document analysis.BMJ global health · 2022Article
- Levosimendan improves postoperative heart function recovery and prognosis in patients with heart disease.American journal of translational research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe effects of physician specialty on the outcome of heart disease remains incompletely understood because of inconsistent findings from some previous studies. Our purpose is to compare the admission outcomes of heart disease in patients receiving care by cardiologists and noncardiologist (NC) physicians.
methodsUsing reimbursement claims data of Taiwan's National Health Insurance from 2008-2013, we conducted a matched study of 6264 patients aged ≥20 years who received a cardiologist's care during admission for heart disease. Using a propensity score matching procedure adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, medical condition, and type of heart disease, 6264 controls who received an NC physician's care were selected. Logistic regressions were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for complications and mortality during admission for heart disease associated with a cardiologist's care.
resultsPatients who received a cardiologist's care had a lower risk of pneumonia (OR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.53-0.70), septicemia (OR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61), urinary tract infection (OR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88), and in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.29-0.47) than did patients who received an NC physician's care. The association between a cardiologist's care and reduced adverse events following admission was significant in both sexes and in patients aged ≥40 years.
conclusionWe raised the possibility that cardiologist care was associated with reduced infectious complications and mortality among patients who were admitted due to heart disease.
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.