Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36056726›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2022

Government Regulation and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Volume, Access and Outcomes: Insights From the Washington State Cardiac Care Outcomes Assessment Program.

Akash Kataruka, Charles C Maynard, Ravi S Hira, Larry Dean, Todd Dardas, Hitinder Gurm, Josiah Brown, Michael E Ring, Jacob A Doll

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Personalized Antithrombotic Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review of Risk-Stratified Approaches.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Akash KatarukaDivision of Cardiology University of Washington Seattle WA.
Charles C MaynardVA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle WA.
Ravi S HiraPulse Heart Institute Tacoma WA.ORCID 0000-0002-6098-0384
Larry DeanDivision of Cardiology University of Washington Seattle WA.
Todd DardasDivision of Cardiology University of Washington Seattle WA.
Hitinder GurmDivision of Cardiology University of Michigan Ann Arbor MI.
Josiah BrownDivision of Cardiology Cedars Sinai Los Angeles CA.
Michael E RingProvidence Sacred Heart Medical Center Spokane WA.
Jacob A DollDivision of Cardiology University of Washington Seattle WA.ORCID 0000-0002-1459-0262

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background It is unclear how to geographically distribute percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) programs to optimize patient outcomes. The Washington State Certificate of Need program seeks to balance hospital volume and patient access through regulation of elective PCI. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective cohort study of all non-Veterans Affairs hospitals with PCI programs in Washington State from 2009 to 2018. Hospitals were classified as having (1) full PCI services and surgical backup (

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionGovernment RegulationHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeWashingtoncertificate of needhealth policypercutaneous coronary interventionregulation

Identifiers

PMID36056726
PMCPMC9496421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.