Observational studyJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2021
Variation in additional testing and patient outcomes after stress echocardiography or myocardial perfusion imaging, according to accreditation status of testing site.
Observational study in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2021. 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.
- Standardizing post-cardiac arrest care across rural-urban settings - qualitative findings on proposed post-cardiac arrest learning community intervention.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the impact of laboratory accreditation on downstream outcomes.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the present study was to determine whether patients receiving a stress echocardiogram or myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) test have differences in subsequent testing and outcomes according to accreditation status of the original testing facility. METHODS AND
resultsAn all-payer claims dataset from Maine Health Data Organization from 2012 to 2014 was utilized to define two cohorts defined by an initial stress echocardiogram or MPI test. The accreditation status (Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC), American College of Radiology (ACR) or none) of the facility performing the index test was known. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression were used to examine differences in subsequent diagnostic testing and cardiac outcomes. We observed 4603 index stress echocardiograms and 8449 MPI tests. Multivariate models showed higher odds of subsequent MPI testing and hospitalization for angina if the index test was performed at a non-accredited facility in both the stress echocardiogram cohort and the MPI cohort. We also observed higher odds of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) performed (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.13-2.50), if the initial MPI test was done in a non-accredited facility.
conclusionCardiac testing completed in non-accredited facilities were associated with higher odds of subsequent MPI testing, hospitalization for angina, and PCI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32676913What 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.