ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2022
Self- vs provider-referral differences for coronary artery calcium testing.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2022. 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.
- Within-Physician Differences in Patient Sharing Between Primary Care Physicians and Cardiologists Who Treat White and Black Patients With Heart Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Study objectives: The objectives of this study were to identify independent predictors for moderate/accentuated coronary artery calcium (CAC) score and compare patients who self-referred for CAC Computed Tomography (CT) testing to those who were provider-referred. Design: Patients underwent CAC between January to July 2019. The analysis was divided into self-referred patients influenced by a CAC community campaign who identified themselves as having cardiovascular risk factors compared to provider-referred intermediate-risk patients who were asymptomatic. SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) was used for all analyses. Setting: Seven southwest Ohio hospitals from a single network. Participants: 2124 adult patients who received CAC CT (163 self and 1961 provider-referred). Interventions: CAC CT. Main outcome measures: Demographics, risk factors, lab values, prescriptions, and referral status were used to compare CAC score differences between self- and provider-referred patients. Results: For 2124 patients, three predictors for moderate/accentuated CAC score remained significant after multiple logistic regression: CKD (OR 0.24, CI 0.008-0.68, Conclusions: CAC CT testing is associated with independent risk predictors and can be used to clarify cardiovascular risk in self- and provider-referred patients with statistical similarity. Patients reliably self-refer for CAC CT when risk is present during a community initiative. Such initiatives may have a preventive benefit and lead to earlier pursuit and optimization of anti-lipid therapies.
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.