ArticleJAMA surgery2025
Implicit Racial Bias and Unintentional Harm in Vascular Care.
Article in JAMA surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physician Implicit Racial Bias and Guideline-Concordant Vascular Care.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Differences in admission to trauma centres by sex among adults with traumatic brain injury: a population-based cohort study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026Article
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Management and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Ventricular Arrhythmias.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Implicit Bias and Recognition of Biases Among Vascular Surgeons.The Journal of surgical research · 2026Article
- Strategies to Promote Health Equity in Interventional Cardiology: Practice, Research, Education, and Policy.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Peripheral Artery Disease: New Concepts, Treatments, and Disparities.Annual review of medicine · 2026Review
- Geographic variation in endovascular revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia care among Medicare beneficiaries (2016-2023).Journal of vascular surgery · 2025Article
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
Importance: Implicit bias may influence physician treatment decisions and contribute to Black-White health disparities. There are limited data linking implicit bias with actual care delivery and outcomes. Objective: To determine whether implicit racial bias is associated with potentially harmful surgical treatment selection for a cohort of patients with peripheral artery disease-related claudication. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study, linked with observational registry data, included eligible clinicians who participate in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) among 960 centers. The VQI includes academic medical centers, teaching hospitals, community hospitals, and private practices. Eligible participants included all vascular specialist VQI members (N = 2512), of whom 218 completed the race implicit association test (IAT) and were linkable to procedure-level data. The study was conducted between October 2021 and October 2022. Exposure: Race IAT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician-level implicit bias results were linked to patient-level registry data of peripheral revascularization procedures performed for claudication. The adjusted odds of performance of any infrapopliteal procedure by specialist implicit bias and patient race were measured via mixed-effects logistic regression models. Implicit bias as a moderator of the association of infrapopliteal procedures for claudication and patient race with 1-year amputation was assessed as a secondary outcome. Results: Among 218 vascular specialists (mean [SD] age, 46 [9] years; 160 [73%] male), 157 (72%) had a pro-White bias. Black patients treated by a physician with pro-White bias had a significant increase in the odds of receiving an infrapopliteal procedure compared with the total sample (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.12-2.48). When treated by a specialist with pro-White bias, Black patients had increased odds of 1-year amputation, regardless of anatomic location treated, compared with White patients (AOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.20-4.55). Conversely, Black patients treated by a specialist with no bias had similar odds of an infrapopliteal procedure (AOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68-1.26) as the full patient sample and similar odds of 1-year amputation (AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.33-4.99) as White patients. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate that implicit bias is associated with potentially harmful infrapopliteal procedures for Black patients and contributes to Black-White outcome disparities in the US. These results suggest the need for system-level interventions that transparently identify and warn of procedures not aligned with best practices to reduce the negative influence of implicit bias.
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.