Specialty-Based Variability in Diagnosing and Managing Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
Mayo Clinic Proceedings, ISSN: 0025-6196, Vol: 95, Issue: 4, Page: 669-675
2020
- 7Citations
- 19Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations7
- Citation Indexes7
- CrossRef1
- Captures19
- Readers19
- 19
Article Description
To quantify differences in the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) between cardiologists and noncardiologists, who often diagnose and manage HFpEF. Cardiologists and noncardiologists (internal medicine, medicine/pediatrics, family medicine, geriatrics) were anonymously surveyed between January 16, 2018, and March 2, 2018, regarding practices related to diagnosing and managing HFpEF at the University of Michigan and Weill Cornell Medical Center. Response data were compared using χ 2 analysis. Of 1010 physicians surveyed, 211 completed a significant portion of the survey: 32 cardiologists and 179 noncardiologists. Most noncardiologists were unaware of HFpEF diagnostic guidelines and commonly used left ventricular diastolic dysfunction and natriuretic peptides to diagnose HFpEF. Noncardiologists (32.3%, n=52) were less likely than cardiologists (64.5%, n= 20) to prescribe an aldosterone antagonist for HFpEF ( P =.001). Both groups reported similar use of β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and exercise programs. Noncardiologists were more likely to refer patients with HFrEF to cardiology (63.1%, n=111) compared with patients with HFpEF (33.5%, n=59; P <.001). Noncardiologists were more likely to discuss prognosis and goals of care with patients with HFrEF (84.4%, n=151) than with patients with HFpEF (65.9%, n=118; P <.001). Cardiologists and noncardiologists vary significantly in their HFpEF diagnosis and treatment practices. As diagnostic criteria continue to be evaluated for HFpEF, dissemination of these guidelines to noncardiologists, with an emphasis on the morbidity and mortality associated with HFpEF, is imperative.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025619619308742; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.09.026; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85081973764&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32247341; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0025619619308742; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.09.026
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know