ReviewCJC open2026
Clinical and Cost Outcomes Associated with Cardiologist Payment Models: A Qualitative Systematic Review.
Review in CJC 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Payment models for cardiologists create financial incentives that can influence clinical decision-making and healthcare costs. In addition, some cardiologists may order diagnostic tests and procedures on equipment they own, which increases the likelihood of such tests being ordered. We aimed to assess the influence of cardiologist payment models on clinical and health system cost outcomes. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, EconLit, and Web of Science, for the period from database inception to August 2025. Studies were included if they examined cardiologist payment models and reported clinical and cost outcomes using randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, or observational study designs. Results: Of 4156 identified studies, 6 met the inclusion criteria. Within studies that evaluated patient volume in a fee-for-service (FFS) model, high-volume FFS cardiologists ordered more diagnostic tests than did low-billing FFS cardiologists, and high-billing cardiologists billed a lower volume of procedures. We observed a higher incidence of hospitalizations in patients with atrial fibrillation in the highest billing cohort, but a lower incidence in patients with heart failure. Among studies that directly compared payment models, diagnostic test utilization was consistently higher in FFS models than in non-FFS payment models. Conclusions: FFS cardiologists order more diagnostic tests, which may lead to higher health system costs. Increased testing did not lead to improvement in key patient outcomes. Further research is needed to examine the relationship between cardiologist payment models, cost, and clinical outcomes of the care provided.
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.