Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Review ArticleClinical Review

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

Arthur Hartz and Paul A. James
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2006, 19 (3) 291-302; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.19.3.291
Arthur Hartz
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul A. James
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

References

  1. ↵
    Greenfield S, Rogers W, Mangotich M, Carney MF, Tarlov AR. Outcomes of patients with hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus treated by different systems and specialties: results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA 1995; 274: 1436–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Zubkoff M, et al. Variations in resource utilization among medical specialties and systems of care: results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA 1992; 267: 1624–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    Harrold LR, Field TS, Gurwitz JH. Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists. J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14: 499–511.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    Go A, Rao R, Dauterman K, Massie B. A systematic review of the effects of physician specialty on the treatment of coronary disease and heart failure in the United States. Am J Med 2000; 108: 216–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    Chen J, Radford MJ, Wang Y, Krumholz HM. Care and outcomes of elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction by physician specialty: the effects of comorbidity and functional limitations. Am J Med 2000; 108: 460–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    Ayanian JZ, Guadagnoli E, McNeil BJ, Cleary PD. Treatment and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction among patients of cardiologists and generalist physicians. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2570–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    Frances CD, Shlipak MG, Noguchi H, Heidenreich PA, McClellan M. Does physician specialty affect the survival of elderly patients with myocardial infarction? Health Serv Res 2000; 35: 1093–116.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    Goldman L. The value of cardiology. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1918–9.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    Nash IS, Corrato RR, Dlutowski MJ, O’Connor JP, Nash DB. Generalist versus specialist care for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1999; 83: 650–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    Casale PN, Jones JL, Wolf FE, Pei Y, Eby LM. Patients treated by cardiologists have a lower in-hospital mortality for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32: 885–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    West S, King V, Carey TS, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 47 (Research Triangle Institute-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center. Contract no. 290-97-0011). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Publication No. 02-E016. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. US Department of Health and Human Services; April 2002.
  12. ↵
    Rosen AK, Reid R, Broemeling A-M, Rakovski CC. Applying a risk-adjustment framework to primary care: can we improve on existing measures? Ann Fam Med 2003; 1: 44–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    Nash IS, Nash DB, Fuster V. Do cardiologists do it better? J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 29: 475–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    Donabedian A. The quality of medical care. Science 1978; 200: 856–64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav 1995; 36: 1–10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    Baldwin LM, MacLehose RF, Hart LG, Beaver SK, Every N, Chan L. Quality of care for acute myocardial infarction in rural and urban US hospitals. J Rural Health 2004; 20: 99–108.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    Hartz AJ, Krakauer H, Kuhn EM, et al. Hospital characteristics and mortality rates. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1720–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    Norcini JJ, Kimball HR, Lipner RS. Certification and specialization: do they matter in the outcome of acute myocardial infarction?. Acad Med 2000; 75: 1193–8.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    Sweeney R, Ulveling EF. A transformation for simplifying the interpretation of coefficients of binary variables in regression analysis. Am Stat 1972; 26: 30–2.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    Marciniak TA, Mosedale L, Ellerbeck EF. Quality improvement at the national level. Lessons from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. Eval Health Prof 1998; 21: 525–36.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Ellerbeck EF, Jencks SF, Radford MJ, et al. Quality of care for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction. A 4-state pilot study from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA 1995; 273: 1509–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    Jollis JG, DeLong ER, Peterson ED, et al. Outcome of acute myocardial infarction according to the specialty of the admitting physician. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1880–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    Frances CD, Go AS, Dauterman KW, et al. Outcome following acute myocardial infarction: are differences among physician specialties the result of quality of care or case mix? Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 1429–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. ↵
    Ayanian J, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E, Gaccione P. Specialty of ambulatory care physicians and mortality among elderly patients after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1678–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    Grumbach K, Hart LG, Mertz E, Coffman J, Palazzo L. Who is caring for the underserved? A comparison of primary care physicians and nonphysician clinicians in California and Washington. Ann Fam Med July 1 2003; 1: 97–104.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    Heidenreich PA, Shlipak MG, Geppert J, McClellan M. Racial and sex differences in refusal of coronary angiography. Am J Med 2002; 113: 200–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    Westfall JM, McGloin J. Impact of double counting and transfer bias on estimated rates and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction. Med Care 2001; 39: 459–68.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    Ayanian J, Landrum MB, Gaccione P. Author reply: Specialty of ambulatory care physicians and mortality after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1289.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    LaVeist TA, Arthur M, Morgan A, Plantholt S, Rubinstein M. Explaining racial differences in receipt of coronary angiography: the role of physician referral and physician specialty. Med Care Res Rev 2003; 60: 453–67; discussion 496–508.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: 19 (3)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 19, Issue 3
May-June 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing Myocardial Infarction Mortality for Generalists and Specialists: Lessons for Research and Health Policy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
1 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing Myocardial Infarction Mortality for Generalists and Specialists: Lessons for Research and Health Policy
Arthur Hartz, Paul A. James
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2006, 19 (3) 291-302; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.19.3.291

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing Myocardial Infarction Mortality for Generalists and Specialists: Lessons for Research and Health Policy
Arthur Hartz, Paul A. James
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2006, 19 (3) 291-302; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.19.3.291
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Paradox of Primary Care
  • The Medical Home: Growing Evidence to Support a New Approach to Primary Care
  • North American Primary Care Research Group President's Award
  • Interpersonal continuity: old and new perspectives
  • Myocardial Infarction Mortality in Rural and Urban Hospitals: Rethinking Measures of Quality of Care
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Interpretating Normal Values and Reference Ranges for Laboratory Tests
  • Non-Surgical Management of Urinary Incontinence
  • Screening and Diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes in Sickle Cell Disease
Show more Clinical Review

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire