ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2023
Institutional Variance in Mortality after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.
Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Resilience and Inequality in Healthcare Utilization: A Longitudinal Comparison Between North Korean Refugees and South Korean Residents.Journal of migration and health · 2026Article
- Combining action research theory with focus-solving short-term psychotherapy for psychological stress, adjustment, and rehabilitation in patients with postoperative acute myocardial infarction following percutaneous coronary intervention.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
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 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough there have been studies that compared outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) across countries, little focus has been placed on institutional variance of outcomes. The aim of the present study was to compare institutional variance in mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for AMI and factors explaining this variance across different health systems.
methodsData on inpatients who underwent PCI for AMI in 2016 were obtained from the National Health Insurance Data Sharing Service in Korea, the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) Study Group Database in Japan, and the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) in Taiwan. Multilevel analyses with inpatient mortality as the outcome and the hierarchical structure of patients nested within hospitals were conducted, adjusting for common patient-level and hospital-level variables. We compared the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the proportion of variance explained by hospital-level characteristics across the three health systems.
resultsThere were 17 351 patients from 160 Korean hospitals, 29 804 patients from 660 Japanese hospitals, and 10 863 patients from 104 Taiwanese hospitals included in the analysis. Inpatient mortality rates were 6.3%, 7.3%, and 6.0% in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, respectively. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, Taiwan had the lowest variation in mortality (ICC, 1.8%), followed by Korea (2.2%) and then Japan (4.5%). The measured hospital characteristics explained 38%, 19%, and 9% of the institutional variance in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, respectively.
conclusionKorea, Japan, and Taiwan had similarly uniform outcomes across hospitals for patients undergoing PCI for AMI. However, Japan had a relatively large institutional variance in mortality and a lower proportion of variation explainable by hospital characteristics, compared with Korea and Taiwan.
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.