Observational studyBMJ open2025
Completion of registration of risk factor variables during telephone vs on-site follow-up after myocardial infarction: a nationwide observational study in 101 199 patients from contemporary clinical practice in Sweden.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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
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
objectivesThe objective of this study was to assess the completeness of registration of secondary preventive variables comparing on-site visits with telephone consultations during follow-up after myocardial infarction.
designThis was an observational study based on the Swedish quality registry SWEDEHEART. SETTING AND OUTCOME MEASURES: We analysed the proportion of missing values for major secondary preventive target data registered at the 2-month and 1-year follow-up visits, during 2006-2022 (n=101 199). χ
resultsBaseline characteristics for patients with on-site visits and telephone consultations were similar. At the 2-month follow-up, the proportion of missing data registered at on-site visits compared with telephone consultations was systolic blood pressure 2.4% (n=1729) vs 28.0% (n=5462), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 9.1% (n=6525) vs 32.6% (n=6360), weight 20.1% (n=14 343) vs 43.0% (n=8401) and haemoglobin A1c for patients with diabetes mellitus 39.4% (n=4594) vs 69.4% (n=2225), p for all <0.0001. The differences were similar at the 1-year follow-up. Self-reported measures such as smoking status, level of physical activity and current medication had a low proportion of missing data (≤2.1%) for both follow-up modalities.
conclusionRegistration of secondary preventive variables was less complete at telephone consultations compared with on-site cardiac rehabilitation follow-up visits, which might indicate lower quality of care during telephone follow-up. Further analysis on the possible impact of lack of registration of secondary preventive variables on patient outcomes is warranted.
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.