Misunderstandings about the effects of race and sex on physicians' referrals for cardiac catheterization

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 341, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 279-283

  Haver, R ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HUMAN; MALE; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX DIFFERENCE;

CLINICAL APPROACH/SOURCE; EDITORIAL POLICIES; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; FEMALES; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALES; PROFESSIONAL PATIENT RELATIONSHIP; SELECTION FOR TREATMENT; SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICANS; AFRICAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CHEST PAIN; CORONARY DISEASE; EDITORIAL POLICIES; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; HEART CATHETERIZATION; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MALE; MASS MEDIA; PATIENT SELECTION; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PHYSICIANS, FAMILY; PREJUDICE; PUBLICATION BIAS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; SEX FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0033595085     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199907223410411     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Schulman KA, Berlin JA, Harless W, et al. The effect of race and sex on physicians' recommendations for cardiac catheterization. N Engl J Med 1999;340:618-26.
2. Study suggests race, sex influence physicians' care. Wall Street Journal. February 26,1999:B6.
3. Doctor bias may affect heart care, study finds. New York Times. February 25, 1999:A23.
4. Heart study points to race, sex bias. Los Angeles Times. February 25, 1999:12.
5. Goldstein A. Georgetown University study finds disparity in heart care; doctors less likely to refer blacks, women for cardiac test. Washington Post. February 25, 1999:A01.
6. Rubin R. Heart care reflects race and sex, not symptoms. USA Today. February 25, 1999:1A.
7. Health care and race. ABC News: Nightline. February 24, 1999.
8. Feinstein A. The bias caused by high values of incidence for p1 in the odds ratio assumption that 1-p1∼1. J Chronic Dis 1986;39:485-7.
9. Zhang J, Yu KF. What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA 1998;280:1690-1.
10. Davies HT, Crombie IK, Tavakoli M. When can odds ratios mislead? BMJ 1998;316:989-91.
11. Welch HG, Koepsell TD. Insurance and the risk of ruptured appendix. N Engl J Med 1995;332:396-7.
12. Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Epidemiology in medicine. Boston: Little, Brown, 1987
13. Fisher ES, Welch HG. Avoiding the unintended consequences of growth in medical care: how might more be worse? JAMA 1999;281:446-53.
14. Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Crawford MH, et al. Outcomes in patients with acute non-Q-wave myocardial infarctions randomly assigned to an invasive as compared with a conservative management strategy. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1785-92. [Erratum, N Engl J Med 1998;339:1091.]
15. Health care: it's better if you're white. The Economist. February 27, 1999:28-9.
16. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:966-72.
17. Sackett D, Deeks J, Altman D. Down with odds ratios. EBM: Evidence-Based Med 1996;1(6):164-6.