ArticleCurrent cardiology reviews2008
Natriuretic Peptide testing in primary care.
Article in Current cardiology reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An approach to heart failure for the public-sector primary care clinician.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2025Article
- Elevated plasma levels of NT-proBNP in ambulatory patients with peripheral arterial disease.PloS one · 2021Article
- Natriuretic Peptide and High-Sensitivity Troponin for Cardiovascular Risk Prediction in Diabetes: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study.Diabetes care · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The incidence, as well as the morbidity and mortality associated with heart failure (HF) continue to rise despite advances in diagnostics and therapeutics. A recent advance in the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to HF is the use of natriuretic peptide (NP) testing, including both B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and its amino terminal cleavage equivalent (NT-proBNP). NPs may be elevated at an early stage among those with symptoms as well among those without. The optimal approach for applying NP testing in general populations is to select the target population and optimal cut off values carefully. Superior diagnostic performance is observed among those with higher baseline risk (such as hypertensives or diabetics). As well, unlike for acute HF, the cut off value for outpatient testing for BNP is 20-40 pg/mL and for NTproBNP it is 100-150 ng/L. In symptomatic primary care patients, both BNP and NT-proBNP serve as excellent tools for excluding HF based on their excellent negative predictive values and their use may be cost effective. Among those with established HF, it is logical to assume that titration of treatment to achieve lower NPs levels may be advantageous. There are several ongoing trials looking at that prospect.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.