ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2025
Evaluation of Peer Review of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Operator Performance.
Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2025. 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCase-based peer review of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used by many hospitals for quality improvement and to make decisions regarding physician competency. However, there are no studies testing the reliability or validity of peer review for PCI performance evaluation.
methodsWe recruited interventional cardiologists from 12 Veterans Affairs Health System facilities throughout the United States to provide PCI cases for review. Ten reviewers performed blinded reviews such that each case was reviewed twice. Cases were rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the best) for 6 care domains (Appropriateness, Lesion Suitability, Strategy, Technical Performance, Outcome, and Documentation) with a summary performance score calculated as the average of all domains. Separately, reviewers determined whether the standard of care was met. Interobserver reliability of the summary performance score was calculated using interclass correlation coefficient. We examined procedural complications and 30-day mortality and major adverse cardiac events for all PCIs performed by these operators from 2019 to 2022 when stratified in tertiles by summary performance score.
resultsOf the 65 cases provided by 13 operators, the mean summary performance score was 3.90 (SD=0.78) out of 5. The interclass correlation coefficient was 0.53, indicating moderate interobserver reliability. For 19 cases (29.2%), 1 reviewer indicated that the performance did not meet the standard of care; however, the second reviewer disagreed in all these cases. Average performance scores ranged from 3.35 to 4.38. Among the 3390 PCIs performed by reviewed cardiologists from 2019 to 2022, the lowest-rated tertile had higher rates of complications (2.9% versus 1.8%,
conclusionsCase-based peer review identifies variation in physician performance that is correlated with PCI outcomes. However, reviewer disagreements about the standard of care raise concerns about the use of peer review for high-stakes assessments of physician competency.
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.