ArticleCureus2026
Systematic Quality Improvement in Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography: A Two-Cycle Audit Demonstrating Enhanced Diagnostic Accuracy.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) has become an important and frequently used non-invasive diagnostic tool for assessing significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in clinical practice. This technique offers several advantages over alternative diagnostic methods, including the absence of radiation exposure, relatively widespread availability across healthcare facilities, and cost-effectiveness compared to nuclear imaging or cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. However, the diagnostic accuracy of DSE depends heavily on multiple factors, including the quality of image acquisition, appropriate patient preparation, and the interpretative expertise of the performing physician. As an operator-dependent investigation, DSE requires continuous quality assessment to maintain diagnostic accuracy and ensure optimal patient outcomes. Without systematic monitoring, variations in technique, interpretation, and patient preparation can lead to suboptimal diagnostic performance, potentially resulting in false negative results that miss significant coronary disease or false positive findings that lead to unnecessary invasive procedures. Systematic audit provides a structured framework for identifying performance gaps, comparing results against established benchmarks, and implementing evidence-based improvements. Regular audit cycles enable clinicians to objectively evaluate their diagnostic accuracy against the reference standard of coronary angiography (CAG), identify specific areas requiring improvement, and implement targeted corrective measures. This approach ensures that patients and referring physicians can have confidence in the diagnostic reliability of the DSE test while promoting continuous professional development and maintaining high clinical standards.
objectivesTo evaluate DSE diagnostic accuracy against CAG and assess improvement following specific quality interventions. This two-cycle audit applied the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) framework and assessed diagnostic performance using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and overall accuracy measured against CAG as the reference standard.
methodsTwo-cycle clinical audit conducted in a non-invasive cardiology practice. Cycle 1 (October 2021-September 2024) included 160 DSE procedures; 75 (46.9%) underwent CAG procedures. Following analysis and intervention implementation, Cycle 2 (February 2025-October 2025) included 27 DSE procedures with 18 (66.7%) subsequent CAG procedures. The primary outcome was concordance between DSE and CAG results. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and overall accuracy were calculated.
resultsOverall accuracy improved from 82.7% (62/75) in Cycle 1 to 88.9% (16/18) in Cycle 2, representing a 6.2 percentage point improvement. False positive results were eliminated entirely (4.0% to 0%), while false negatives decreased modestly (13.3% to 11.1%). Analysis revealed that both false negatives in Cycle 2 resulted from failure to withhold nitrate therapy, prompting implementation of a three-tier medication verification checklist.
conclusionsSystematic audit with targeted interventions successfully enhanced DSE diagnostic accuracy. The medication verification checklist addresses a preventable systematic error and represents a transferable safety strategy applicable to other stress testing modalities.
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.