ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2011
Adherence to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for chronic heart failure--a national survey of the cardiologists in Pakistan.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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.
- Standardizing the management of cardiovascular diseases in the primary health care setting of Pakistan.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aims of this study were to evaluate the awareness of and attitudes towards the 2005 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for Heart Failure (HF) of the cardiologists in Pakistan and assess barriers to adherence to guidelines.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in person from March to July 2009 to all cardiologists practicing in 4 major cities in Pakistan (Karachi, Lahore, Quetta and Peshawar). A validated, semi-structured questionnaire assessing ESC 2005 Guidelines for HF was used to obtain information from cardiologists. It included questions about awareness and relevance of HF guidelines (See Additional File 1). Respondents' management choices were compared with those of an expert panel based on the guidelines for three fictitious patient cases. Cardiologists were also asked about major barriers to adherence to guidelines.
resultsA total of 372 cardiologists were approached; 305 consented to participate (overall response rate, 82.0%). The survey showed a very high awareness of CHF guidelines; 97.4% aware of any guideline. About 13.8% considered ESC guidelines as relevant or very relevant for guiding treatment decisions while 92.8% chose AHA guidelines in relevance. 87.2% of respondents perceived that they adhered to the HF guidelines. For the patient cases, the proportions of respondents who made recommendations that completely matched those of the guidelines were 7% (Scenario 1), 0% (Scenario 2) and 20% (Scenario 3). Respondents considered patient compliance (59%) and cost/health economics (50%) as major barriers to guideline implementation.
conclusionWe found important self reported departures from recommended HF management guidelines among cardiologists of Pakistan.
Indexed as
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.