HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Rapid Responses: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hartz, A. Articles by James, P. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hartz, A. Articles by James, P. A.

A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing Myocardial Infarction Mortality for Generalists and Specialists: Lessons for Research and Health Policy

Department of Family Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242

Correspondence: Corresponding author: Arthur Hartz, MD, PhD, Professor for Quality in Family Medicine, Research Director, Department of Family Medicine, University of Iowa, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, 200 Hawkins Drive, 01292-D PFP, Iowa City, IA 52242-1097 (E-mail: arthur-hartz{at}uiowa.edu)

Background: Much of the research comparing specialists and generalists is from studies of patients who had a myocardial infarction. The present study systematically examined this research.

Methods: Medline was used to search for all articles published from 1990 to 2003 that compared cardiologists and generalists for adjusted mortality rates of patients with myocardial infarction. From each article identified, information was abstracted on factors that could have influenced the comparisons.

Results: The studies consistently found that patients of generalists were at greater risk of mortality from both cardiac and noncardiac risk factors and had higher unadjusted mortality rates. Adjusting for risk factors decreased the differences between cardiologists and generalists. Studies that seemed to do the best job taking into account patient differences had similar adjusted-mortality rates for the cardiologists and generalists. No studies adequately took into account reasons the patient did not have care by a cardiologist, eg, patient preferences, severity of comorbid disease, general health status, or resource availability.

Conclusions: Generalists and cardiologists differ substantially with respect to their patients and practice environments. Results comparing patient outcomes by specialty are often influenced by important patient or resource characteristics that were not taken into account.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. A. Bowman and A. V. Neale North American Primary Care Research Group President's Award J Am Board Fam Med, January 1, 2008; 21(1): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. A. James, P. Li, and M. M. Ward Myocardial Infarction Mortality in Rural and Urban Hospitals: Rethinking Measures of Quality of Care Ann. Fam. Med, March 1, 2007; 5(2): 105 - 111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]