ArticleIndian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2025
Comparative analysis of cardiac surgical outcomes across different healthcare funding modalities: a comprehensive cohort study.
Article in Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To critically examine patient outcomes across different funding categories in cardiac surgical interventions. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on patients undergoing cardiac surgery between April 2017 and August 2023 at a single institution. Patients were stratified into six distinct funding categories: Cash Payment, Insurance, Government Schemes, Fund/Trust, Public Sector Unit, and the state-specific Swasthya Sathi patients. We examined three major surgical procedures: isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), aortic valve replacement, and mitral valve replacement. The primary outcome was mortality rates across various funding schemes and specific surgical procedures. Results: The overall mortality rate was 2.40%, with no statistically significant differences observed across funding categories ( Conclusion: Our study provides preliminary evidence that challenges the widespread perception of inferior care for government-funded patients. The study suggests that the funding mechanism does not significantly impact surgical outcomes in this cardiac surgery cohort, highlighting the potential effectiveness of diverse healthcare financing models in delivering equitable medical care. Graphical Abstract: Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-025-01987-8.
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.