Trial reportThe American journal of emergency medicine2025
Cardiac testing choices by physician specialty in the CMR-IMPACT trial.
Trial report in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2025. 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.
- Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging reduces radiation exposure in emergency department patients with chest pain: A secondary analysis from the CMR IMPACT trial.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHeterogeneity is observed in the care of patients with chest pain. We investigate the association of physician specialty and diagnostic testing among patients admitted for suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
methodsThis is a secondary analysis of the CMR-IMPACT multicenter randomized controlled trial in which patients with suspected ACS were admitted and randomized to undergo invasive angiography or non-invasive CMR stress imaging. Admitting physician was dichotomized to interventional cardiologist (IC) or not (e.g. hospitalist). We describe adherence to protocol and angiography during the index visit by treatment arm and admitting physician specialty. A generalized estimating equation accounting for clustering within physician was used to evaluate significance and adjusted for randomization arm.
resultsThe 258 enrolled patients from 2013 to 2018 had a mean age of 60.7 (SD ± 10.9) years, 40.3 % (104/258 were female), and 64.7 % (167/258) were white race. ICs were the admitting physicians for 50.4 % (130/258) of the patients. Index angiography was performed more often among patients admitted by IC versus other physicians, 65.4 % (85/130) versus 53.1 % (68/128), respectively; aOR 1.75 (95 % CI 1.14-2.68). Among patients randomized to an invasive strategy, higher protocol adherence was observed in those admitted by IC [85.3 % (58/68)] versus other physicians [64.5 % (40/62)]; OR 2.82 (95 % CI 1.08-7.38). For patients randomized to the CMR-based strategy, adherence to protocol was similar for IC [67.7 % (42/62)] and other physicians [66.7 % (44/66)]; OR 0.82 (95 % CI 0.35-1.94).
conclusionInvasive angiography was more frequent among patients admitted by interventional cardiologists compared to other physicians.
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.