ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2026
Effectiveness of safety care and clinical nursing pathway in patients undergoing cardiovascular intervention: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of safety care and clinical nursing pathways in patients undergoing cardiovascular intervention.
methodsThis single-center, single-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolled 100 patients who underwent cardiovascular intervention. Patients were randomly assigned to a control group (receiving standard nursing care) or an experimental group (receiving safety care and clinical nursing pathway interventions in addition to the standard care) (n = 50 each). The primary outcome measure included anxiety and depression symptoms assessed using the Hamilton Anxiety and Hamilton Depression (HAMA and HAMD) rating scales. Secondary outcome measures included cardiac function recovery time, surgery time, surgical vascular puncture success rate, puncture preparation time, and hospital stay, along with adverse events and complications, quality of life, and nursing satisfaction.
resultsIn the experimental group, post-intervention HAMA (6.42 ± 2.41) and HAMD (6.32 ± 1.44) scores were significantly lower than those in the control group (9.24 ± 1.52, 8.76 ± 1.59) (p < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions was lower in the experimental group (12.0%) than in the control group (30.0%) (p < 0.05). Surgery time (45.60 ± 2.98 min) and puncture preparation time (5.08 ± 1.09 min) were shorter, and the vascular puncture success rate was higher (96.0%) in the experimental group; quality-of-life scores and nursing satisfaction were also higher in the experimental group (p < 0.05).
conclusionSafety care and clinical nursing pathways may be effective in reducing anxiety and depression, lowering adverse reactions, shortening operation and puncture preparation times, increasing the success rate of vascular puncture, improving health knowledge, boosting patient satisfaction, and enhancing quality of life in patients undergoing cardiovascular intervention.
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.