ArticleThe Canadian journal of cardiology2024
Approaches to Comparing the Impact of Socioeconomic Disadvantage on Acute Myocardial Infarction Care Within and Across Countries: A Scoping Review.
Article in The Canadian journal of cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding how cardiovascular disease treatment and outcomes differ for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients across countries may reveal insights into the impact of countries' policy initiatives on health equity. However, methods of undertaking these studies are poorly characterized.
methodsWe performed a scoping review to identify studies describing between-country comparisons of socioeconomic inequalities in the care of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to determine the extent to which such comparisons have been conducted, the methodologies used, and outcomes assessed. We searched Medline from January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2023 for peer-reviewed English-language publications. Studies were included if they stratified patients by a measure of socioeconomic disadvantage (eg, race, ethnicity, income, education, occupation, immigrant status) and made comparisons between 2 or more countries.
resultsOur search yielded 4861 articles focused on patients with AMI, of which 7 met our inclusion criteria. Common individual-level proxies for disadvantage were self-reported income or education. In contrast, we found no cross-country comparisons focused on other measures of disadvantage such as race and ethnicity. There was marked heterogeneity in methods and thresholds used to define socioeconomic disadvantage at the individual level. All included studies found that patients with higher income and higher educational attainment had improved AMI outcomes.
conclusionsBetween-country comparisons of socioeconomic disparities in AMI outcomes are scarce and heterogeneous, but all identified studies relied on metrics of disadvantage including income and education that could be uniformly measured across countries. We found no articles addressing other types of inequities, likely because of significant methodologic challenges.
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.