ReviewHeart failure clinics2013
End points for comparative effectiveness research in heart failure.
Review in Heart failure clinics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Novel measures to assess ventricular assist device patient-reported outcomes: Findings from the MCS A-QOL study.The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2024Article
- Baroreflex activation therapy reduces frequency and duration of hypertension-related hospitalizations in patients with resistant hypertension.Clinical autonomic research : official journal of the Clinical Autonomic Research Society · 2020Article
- Aortic Stenosis and Heart Failure: Disease Ascertainment and Statistical Considerations for Clinical Trials.Cardiac failure review · 2019Review
- Association between quality of life and prognosis of candidate patients for heart transplantation: a cross-sectional study.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2018Article
- The clinical epidemiology of fatigue in newly diagnosed heart failure.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2017Article
- Power and sample size calculations for the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test in the presence of death-censored observations.Statistics in medicine · 2015Article
- Cardiac neuronal imaging with ¹²³I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine in heart failure: implications of endpoint selection and quantitative analysis on clinical decisions.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2014Article
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
Abstract
CER for heart failure continues to evolve, including its assessment of end points. Reliance on surrogate end points is unacceptable as a means of definitively establishing comparisons of clinical effectiveness. CER needs to focus on measures that clearly reflect clinical effectiveness and safety, not just survival but also standardized assessments of health status and detailed resource utilization, and it must do so in a standardized way to allow for comparison. This strategy almost certainly requires increased reliance on prospective studies with proactive end-point capture, preferably in the setting of randomized allocation of the interventions being compared.
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.