ArticleBMJ open2025
Clinician attitudes, opinions and practice patterns regarding inotrope use for cardiac surgery in the USA: a multicentre mixed methods study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Variation in Vasoactive Treatment Selection for Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN).Circulation. Heart failure · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCardiac inotrope medications administered to cardiac surgical patients carry steep risk-benefit trade-offs, yet wide inter-institutional variation exists in inotrope practices. Despite known wide variation in use of any inotrope for cardiac surgery, limited multicentre data exist regarding determinants of inotrope selection and time course for use. Additionally, the reasons that underpin how clinicians decide on inotrope usage and the factors that influence inotrope practice change are not well understood. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an investigator-initiated, multicentre mixed methods study. Quantitative data will include electronic health records from an observational cohort of adult cardiac procedures within the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) database, comprising cardiac surgical procedures from over 30 US academic and community hospitals. Additional quantitative data will be collected via surveys of clinicians involved in inotrope decision-making, contacted through an existing multicentre research and quality improvement infrastructure with engaged clinician representatives participating across MPOG hospitals. Qualitative data will be collected from open-ended questions within surveys, as well as semi-structured interviews with surveyed clinicians, sampled across approximately six institutions selected for diversity of settings and inotrope practices. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design will merge quantitative and qualitative data to develop meta-inferences explaining inotrope practices, as guided by an existing framework for characterising clinical practice variation and levers for practice change. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the institutional review board at the University of Michigan Medical School (HUM00245353). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference proceedings and quality improvement forums. The study began in February 2025 and will continue until 2028.
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.