ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2023
Evolution of Value in American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Clinical Practice Guidelines.
Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn January 2014, the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association released a policy statement arguing for the inclusion of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and value assessments in clinical practice guidelines. It is unclear whether subsequent guidelines changed how they incorporated such concepts.
methodsWe analyzed guidelines of cardiovascular disease subconditions with a guideline released before and after 2014. We counted the words (total and per page) for 8 selected value- or CEA-related terms and compared counts and rates of terms per page in the guidelines before and after 2014. We counted the number of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA or a CEA-related article to compare the ratios of such recommendations to all recommendations before and after 2014. We looked for the inclusion of the value assessment system recommended by the writing committee of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association policy statement of 2014.
resultsWe analyzed 20 guidelines of 10 different cardiovascular disease subconditions. Seven of the 10 cardiovascular disease subconditions had guidelines with a greater term per page rate after 2014 than before 2014. Across all 20 guidelines, the proportion of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA changed from 0.44% to 1.99% (
conclusionsThe proportion of recommendations with at least 1 reference to a CEA or CEA-related article was low before and after 2014 for most of the subconditions, however, with substantial variation in this finding across the guidelines included in our analysis. There is a need to organize existing CEA information better and produce more policy-relevant CEAs so guideline writers can more easily make recommendations that incentivize high-value care and caution against using low-value care.
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.