We only have this paper's title and publication details.
Read it at the sourceAnswers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“We developed a standardized vocabulary for documenting and reporting critical cardiovascular adverse events, along with specifications for the exchange of that information between computer systems. The key use will be in reporting findings to the FDA, whether in the context of clinical trials, pharmacovigilance, or device surveillance. Ultimately, we anticipate widespread adoption of this vocabulary throughout healthcare (including routine clinical care) as a catalyst for accelerating improvements in patient management and treatment.”
“It's not like these are small trials of rare disorders where you might say, 'OK, this is what we looked at.' These are very planned out studies.”
“How you define something, whether it's rehospitalization or need for revascularization, for example, these are the sorts of things that have some discretion to them and could potentially lead to bias.”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hicks et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: