ArticlePloS one2025
"If it's necessary, it has to be done. And that's for the physician to decide, not me." Imaging techniques in monitoring routines in coronary heart disease and post-stroke patients: A qualitative interview study from the patients' perspective.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Article
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
backgroundChronic conditions such as coronary heart disease and stroke impose a significant burden on individuals and healthcare systems. Regular monitoring, including imaging techniques such as echocardiography and carotid duplex sonography, is used in follow-up care to detect disease progression and guide treatment decisions. Although these procedures are thought to provide clinical benefit, evidence-based guidelines provide limited recommendations for their routine use. This raises concerns about potential overdiagnosis, unnecessary healthcare costs and the psychological impact of frequent medical examinations. This study explores how patients with coronary heart disease and post-stroke experience and perceive these monitoring practices, focusing on their expectations, emotional responses and perceived benefits.
methodsA qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with patients who had undergone echocardiography or carotid duplex sonography within the past three years. Participants were recruited in two regions in Germany. Interviews were transcribed and analysed following Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis approach.
resultsFourteen patients were interviewed. Participants generally found monitoring to be beneficial and reassuring. They expressed confidence in their physicians' recommendations and felt that the frequency of monitoring was appropriate. Patients left decisions about their regular monitoring entirely to their physicians. A hypothetical reduction raised concerns about the rationing of care. In addition, monitoring was perceived as influencing therapeutic decisions, reinforcing the perceived need for monitoring.
conclusionsPatients' positive attitudes towards monitoring are shaped by their perception of medical necessity, which is primarily influenced by their physicians. Given patients' reliance on physician advice, the responsibility for refining monitoring strategies lies primarily with physicians, who should critically assess indications to avoid unnecessary investigations.
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.