ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2011
Use of novel and conventional biomarkers for management of patients with heart failure.
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- To ascertain the utility of urinary methyl malonic Acid as a potential marker of ischemic heart failure.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2014Article
- Ruling out cardiac failure: cost-benefit analysis of a sequential testing strategy with NT-proBNP before echocardiography.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2013Article
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
opinion statementInvestigation of the complex biochemical pathways that underlie heart failure (HF) has led to the recognition of multiple molecular markers that may help to characterize patients with this disease. Although a myriad of novel biomarkers are being studied, most attention continues to be focused on the natriuretic peptides, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-Terminal-proBNP (NT-proBNP). Numerous studies have established a role for these hormones in HF diagnosis and prognostication. More contentious has been their role in helping to guide HF management on a routine basis. This article aims to update the body of evidence surrounding conventional HF biomarkers and to highlight some emerging evidence on the use of novel markers. We believe that in select patients there may be a role for monitoring and cautious interpretation of HF biomarker levels to facilitate diagnosis, prognostication, and optimization of tailored therapy. However, there are not yet convincing data to suggest that routine hormone monitoring should be applied broadly and algorithmically to all HF patients. Moreover, to the extent that they are measured, HF biomarkers should serve only as a complement to-never as a substitute for-sound clinical judgment, watchful follow-up, and reliance on expert consultation when necessary.
Identifiers
21965029What 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.