ArticleJournal of general internal medicine1996
Variations in the management of acute myocardial infarction. Importance of clinical measures of disease severity.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 1996. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the extent to which resource use for patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction varies with clinical status, and to see if an observed difference in resource use between two states can be explained by clinically detailed risk adjustment.
designRetrospective review of the clinical characteristics and resource use of 342 patients hospitalised in two states with acute myocardial infarction. DATA SOURCES: Merged data from three sources: a large, existing research database used in developing the Medicare Mortality Predictor Score, clinical data abstracted from medical charts specifically for this study, and Medicare Parts A and B claims records. PATIENTS: A probability sample of Medicare patients hospitalized in 1986 with a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction and residing in either Wisconsin or Washington state; patients dying within 30 days are oversampled. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsAlthough patients were clinically similar in the two states, there were systematic differences in resource use. Patients in Wisconsin spent more than one extra day in the intensive care unit (ICU) (2.8 vs 1.7) as well as more than one extra non-ICU day in the hospital (8.0 vs 6.5) than patients in Washington. Patients in Wisconsin were also more likely to receive an echocardiogram (35.6% vs 15.8%), nuclear ventriculogram (12.8% vs 4.1%), exercise tolerance test (21.5% vs 3.4), and Holter monitoring (5.4% vs 0%). (All p < .01.) Differences in utilization were greater for patients at lower risk of dying. The average cost of care was 20.8% higher in Wisconsin (p = .01); risk adjustment for clinical and other factors reduced this difference to 11.8%, but did not eliminate it (p = .04).
conclusionsPatients with acute myocardial infarction vary in resource use as a function of clinical factors present at admission and occurring during the hospital stay; comparisons that do not take account of these factors may not discriminate well between providers who care for sicker patients and those who are inefficient. The greater use of resources for patients in Wisconsin is at least partially explained by differences in clinical characteristics that are not presently captured in administrative data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8803739What 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.