Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of Public Report Cards for Improving the Quality of Cardiac Care: The EFFECT Study: A Randomized Trial

Tu, Jack V., Donovan, Linda R., Lee, Douglas S., Wang, Julie T., Austin, Peter C., Alter, David A., Ko, Dennis T.·2009·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Publicly released report cards on hospital performance are increasingly common, but whether they are an effective method for improving quality of care remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the public release of data on cardiac quality indicators effectively stimulates hospitals to undertake quality improvement activities that improve health care processes and patient outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Population-based cluster randomized trial (Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment [EFFECT]) of 86 hospital corporations in Ontario, Canada, with patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or congestive heart failure (CHF). INTERVENTION: Participating hospital corporations were randomized to early (January 2004) or delayed (September 2005) feedback of a public report card on their baseline performance (between April 1999 and March 2001) on a set of 12 process-of-care indicators for AMI and 6 for CHF. Follow-up performance data (between April 2004 and March 2005) also were collected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The coprimary outcomes were composite AMI and CHF indicators based on 12 AMI and 6 CHF process-of-care indicators. Secondary outcomes were the individual process-of-care indicators, a hospital report card impact survey, and all-cause AMI and CHF mortality. RESULTS: The publication of the early feedback hospital report card did not result in a significant systemwide improvement in the early feedback group in either the composite AMI process-of-care indicator (absolute change, 1.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.2% to 5.1%; P = .43) or the composite CHF process-of-care indicator (absolute change, 0.6%; 95% CI, -4.5% to 5.7%; P = .81). During the follow-up period, the mean 30-day AMI mortality rates were 2.5% lower (95% CI, 0.1% to 4.9%; P = .045) in the early feedback group compared with the delayed feedback group. The hospital mortality rates for CHF were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Public release of hospital-specific quality indicators did not significantly improve composite process-of-care indicators for AMI or CHF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00187460.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.1731

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Authors
Tu, J. V., Donovan, L. R., Lee, D. S., Wang, J. T., Austin, P. C., Alter, D. A., & Ko, D. T.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2009-12-02
Volume
302
Issue
21
Pages
2330
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1998777043
Cited by
258
References
21
FWCI
43.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness of Public Report Cards for Improving the Quality of Cardiac Care: The EFFECT Study: A Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2009.1731
The paper
Tu, J. V., Donovan, L. R., Lee, D. S., Wang, J. T., Austin, P. C., Alter, D. A., & Ko, D. T. (2009). Effectiveness of Public Report Cards for Improving the Quality of Cardiac Care: The EFFECT Study: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1731

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.