ArticleBMJ open2025
Do patients' and doctors' perceptions about cardiovascular outcomes coincide? A one-to-one survey at in-hospital and outpatient level.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCardiovascular (CV) diseases are associated with adverse outcomes. However, attention has typically focused on outcomes considered relevant by doctors, whereas the potential gap in perception and relative importance of outcomes that may exist between patients and doctors has been scarcely explored. Evidence available reports the views of either patients or doctors alone, and data are analysed in aggregate. We investigated this issue by surveying for the first time patients' and doctors' opinions simultaneously, on a one-to-one basis.
designSurvey involving patients with different CV diseases. Each patient and their attending doctor were asked to simultaneously but independently gauge the importance each attached to a predetermined set of outcomes, filling out disease-specific questionnaires. Results were analysed by compositional analysis.
settingInpatients and outpatients being seen by cardiologists and internal medicine specialists at hospitals affiliated with the National Health System in Umbria, Italy.
participantsAll-comer patients, presenting with one of the following conditions: atrial fibrillation (AF), myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF) or considered at high CV risk.
main outcome measuresImportance attached to outcomes relative to life path, quality of life, future clinical events.
resultsFrom 337 paired questionnaires returned, significant differences between patients' and doctors' perspectives emerged. Specifically: (1) patients with AF were significantly less concerned about the risk of stroke than doctors; (2) worsening of HF was a greater concern for doctors than patients, whereas patients weighed the risk of disability more; (3) patients with a previous MI, or at high CV risk, weighed the risk of hospitalisation less relevant than doctors, but were significantly more concerned about the risk of disability.
conclusionsSimultaneous, one-to-one assessment of patients' and doctors' opinion shows remarkable differences between patients' perception and physicians' judgement concerning the relevance of major CV outcomes. Appreciation and sharing of these issues may inform better tailoring of cardiac care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.