ArticleBMC primary care2025
Continuity of primary care and its impact on prognosis in patients with heart failure referred for cardiology consultation.
Article in BMC primary care, 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.
- Advanced electronic consultation between primary care and cardiology: impact of tele-echocardiography and event-based electrocardiographic monitoring.European heart journal open · 2026Review
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
objectiveTo assess the prognostic impact of continuity of care (COC), defined as care provided by the same primary care physician (PCP), in patients with heart failure (HF) referred for cardiology consultation.
methodsWe analyzed all patients with previous HF referred by PCPs between January 2010 and December 2023, in our healthcare area (Santiago de Compostela, Galician-Spain). COC was analyzed by considering whether the referring PCP was the patient’s assigned PCP (PCP stability) or COC interrupted. To estimate the association between COC and hospitalization and mortality outcomes (all-cause, cardiovascular, and HF), we used Cox regression to obtain hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI), adjusting for potential confounders.
results5,899 patients’ referrals were included. Patients with COC interrupted had a higher annual referral rate (2.4 [3.0] vs. 1.5 [0.5], p < 0.001). Patients with PCP stability had a lower risk of all-cause hospitalizations (HR [95% CI]: 0.85 [0.76–0.95], p = 0.006) and all-cause mortality (HR [95% CI]: 0.89 [0.80-1.00], p = 0.044). The COC interrupted was associated with higher risk of mortality for CV causes (HR [95%CI]: 2,65 [2,02–3,48]) and HF causes (HR [95%CI]: 1,66 [1,94 − 1,42]), and also hospitalizations for CV causes (HR [95%CI]: 1,64 [1,27 − 2,12]) and HF causes (HR [95%CI]: 1,78 [1,19 − 2,65]).
conclusionsThe COC, defined as care provided by the same PCP, for a group of patients with HF, reduced the number of referrals and was associated with better outcomes, including lower rates of all-cause hospitalizations and mortality. The COC interruption was associated with worst prognosis at 1-year.
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.