ArticleJournal of general internal medicine1994
Revascularization after acute myocardial infarction: impact of hospital teaching status and on-site invasive facilities.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meeting patients' health information needs in breast cancer center hospitals - a multilevel analysis.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- Depression and prognosis following hospital admission because of acute myocardial infarction.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2003Article
- Fairness in the coronary angiography queue.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 1999Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the influence of hospital teaching status and service availability on rates of revascularization following myocardial infarction.
designRetrospective cohort study based on province-wide hospital discharge abstracts.
settingAll acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada's most populous province (9.7 million). PATIENTS: Patients admitted to hospital between April 1, 1991, and September 30, 1991, with a principal diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. MEASUREMENTS: The odds of a patient's having been referred for revascularization (angioplasty or bypass surgery) within six months of a myocardial infarction were calculated based on the type of hospital to which he or she had initially presented, defined as "teaching" or "nonteaching" or as having or not having interventional facilities on-site (cardiac catheterization and/or revascularization). Odds ratios were adjusted for potential confounding variables, and for possible joint effects of teaching status and on-site interventional capabilities.
resultsThe patients were more likely to have had revascularization (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.47-2.14, p = 0.0001) when they had been admitted to a teaching hospital, and independently were more likely to have been referred for revascularization (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.09-1.66, p = 0.0067) when they had been admitted to a hospital with on-site interventional facilities. There was no interaction between teaching status and service availability regarding referral for revascularization.
conclusionTeaching status is an important determinant of revascularization following acute myocardial infarction and is independent of service availability, which also influences revascularization rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
7876949What 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.