Observational studyBMJ open2025
Prognosis of patients hospitalised with primary or secondary pericardial disease: an Australian population-based retrospective cohort study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the outcomes and associations of pericardial disease, with a particular focus on the outcomes of patients admitted with primary or secondary pericardial disease.
designRetrospective observational study.
settingAll public and private hospitals in New South Wales, Australia.
participantsHospitalised patients with pericardial disease admitted from 2004 to 2021 that was (a) a primary diagnosis or (b) a secondary diagnosis. MEASURES: Mortality both in-hospital and during several years of available follow-up.
resultsOut of 45 446 patients diagnosed with pericardial disease, under half (46.8%) had pericardial disease as the primary reason for hospitalisation. Patients in whom pericardial disease was the primary compared with the secondary diagnosis were more commonly male (68.2% vs 59.1%), younger (median 51.2 years vs 66.0 years) and less comorbid (age-adjusted median Charlson Comorbidity Index 1 vs 4). In patients with pericardial disease, adjusted in-hospital mortality was fivefold lower if this was the primary diagnosis (OR 0.21, p<0.001). Malignancy affected 19% of the population and after adjustment was associated with a much higher in-hospital mortality for patients with a primary (OR 4.33) or secondary diagnosis of pericardial disease (OR 2.67). Other negative prognostic factors included older age, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, pulmonary hypertension, heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
conclusionsPatients with pericardial disease have a low in-hospital mortality of about 1% if this was the primary diagnosis. However, patients in whom it was a secondary diagnosis, especially in the presence of comorbidities such as malignancy, had a much worse prognosis.
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.