ArticlePloS one2024
Regional variations in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction patients: A trajectory analysis using the national claims database in Japan.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Reply: The AHEAD score in acute myocardial infarction: a call for more rigorous validation.AsiaIntervention · 2026Article
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
backgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated geographical disparities regarding the quality of care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The aim of this study was two-fold: first, to calculate the proportion of patients with AMI who received primary percutaneous coronary interventions (pPCIs) by secondary medical areas (SMAs), which provide general inpatient care, as a quality indicator (QI) of the process of AMI practice. Second, to identify patterns in their trajectories and to investigate the factors related to regional differences in their trajectories.
methodsWe included patients hospitalized with AMI between April 2014 and March 2020 from the national health insurance claims database in Japan and calculated the proportion of pPCIs across 335 SMAs and fiscal years. Using these proportions, we conducted group-based trajectory modeling to identify groups that shared similar trajectories of the proportions. In addition, we investigated area-level factors that were associated with the different trajectories.
resultsThe median (interquartile range) proportions of pPCIs by SMAs were 63.5% (52.9% to 70.5%) in FY 2014 and 69.6% (63.3% to 74.2%) in FY 2020. Four groups, named low to low (LL; n = 48), low to middle (LM; n = 16), middle to middle (MM; n = 68), and high to high (HH; n = 208), were identified from our trajectory analysis. The HH and MM groups had higher population densities and higher numbers of physicians and cardiologists per capita than the LL and LM groups. The LL and LM groups had similar numbers of physicians per capita, but the number of cardiologists per capita in the LM group increased over the years of the study compared with the LL group.
conclusionThe trajectory of the proportion of pPCIs for AMI patients identified groups of SMAs. Among the four groups, the LM group showed an increasing trend in the proportions of pPCIs, whereas the three other groups showed relatively stable trends.
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.