ArticlePloS one2026
Motivations, experiences and perspectives of physicians in Germany regarding monitoring routines in coronary heart disease and post-stroke patients: A qualitative interview study.
Article in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic conditions, like coronary heart disease and post stroke status require lifelong care which negatively impacts upon patients' quality of life and increases burden on the healthcare system. Monitoring routines in chronic conditions, including echocardiography and carotid ultrasound, should have evidence of benefit for the patient, detect deterioration and guide treatment adaptations. However, monitoring routines often lack evidence for intervals, specific tests or apparative diagnostic tools. The aim of this qualitative interview study was to identify the motivations, typical procedures and consequences of monitoring including echocardiography or carotid ultrasound in patients with coronary heart disease or stroke. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 physicians from three different specialties (general practitioners, cardiologists and neurologists) in two German states. Transcripts were analysed with thematic analysis. Physicians considered monitoring generally as beneficial for the patient and the health system, as it helps to detect and in consequence prevent disease progression through adaptation of therapy. Physicians discussed the risks of monitoring like overdiagnosis, overuse and overtreatment when examinations are done too frequently. Reasons and motivations given for echocardiography on coronary heart disease patients and carotid ultrasound monitoring on stroke patients were diverse and ranged from individual feelings and values, like personal assurance and safety concerns for patients, to external factors like financial incentives. Ultrasound examinations as routine monitoring procedures were considered as controversial. Physicians reported insufficient medical benefit for the patient and rarely saw therapeutic consequences. These regularly performed ultrasound examinations strain resources in daily practice and limit availability for acute care. In order to achieve a more efficient and balanced use of monitoring examinations, systematic changes are required at a political level. Further research is needed to evaluate monitoring routines and incorporate evidence-based recommendations into guidelines that optimize patient care and resource use.
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.