ArticleJTCVS open2026
Contemporary cardiac surgery outcomes databases: Data sources, variables, and applications.
Article in JTCVS open, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Large-scale multicenter databases are foundational to observational research in cardiac surgery, enabling robust analysis of clinical outcomes, practice patterns, and population-level trends. We characterize the databases most frequently used in contemporary cardiac surgery outcomes research. Methods: We reviewed all retrospective observational studies published between January 2019 and August 2025 in 7 high-impact journals and identified 905 eligible articles utilizing 217 distinct databases. The 16 most frequently used databases were further evaluated on their specific characteristics including structure, patient coverage, clinical granularity, and follow-up. Results: The selected databases broadly included (1) clinical databases such as the Society of Thoracic Surgeons databases, European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory, and the Australia and New Zealand Fontan Registry; (2) administrative claims databases like Medicare Fee-for-Service and Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database; and (3) linkage-based sources such as the National Death Index. These databases varied in procedural detail, national coverage, follow-up, population score and data completeness. Conclusions: This study comprehensively characterized common contemporary large databases used in cardiac surgery outcomes research. A thorough understanding of databases, and how they align with specific research questions is essential to generating meaningful, generalizable clinical evidence to guide clinical practice.
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.