ReviewHeart failure reviews2014
Predicted values of exercise capacity in heart failure: where we are, where to go.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing Cardiac Amyloidosis Care Through Insights from Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Cardiopulmonary exercise testing criteria for advanced therapies in patients with heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2023Review
- Cardiopulmonary exercise testing and heart failure: a tale born from oxygen uptake.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Benefits of a Supervised Ambulatory Outpatient Program in a Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Unit Prior to a Heart Transplant: A Case Study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison of the FRIEND and Wasserman-Hansen Equations in Predicting Outcomes in Heart Failure.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Article
- Comparison of V̇OFrontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Gender and age normalization and ventilation efficiency during exercise in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.ESC heart failure · 2020Article
- Heart Failure and Midrange Ejection Fraction: Implications of Recovered Ejection Fraction for Exercise Tolerance and Outcomes.Circulation. Heart failure · 2016Observational
- Circulating miR-21, miR-378, and miR-940 increase in response to an acute exhaustive exercise in chronic heart failure patients.Oncotarget · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a procedure widely used in daily clinical activity to investigate cardiac and pulmonary disorders. Peak oxygen consumption (VO2 peak) is the most validated and clinically accepted parameter used to report aerobic capacity in healthy individuals and in different clinical settings. However, peak VO2 is influenced by several factors, whose variability is nowadays particularly evident due to the extensive use of CPET even in very young and very old subgroups of patients. Thus, its diagnostic and prognostic significance may be improved by the use of % of predicted VO2. At present, many sets of normal values are available, making the identification of the most proper max VO2 predicted value a challenging problem. In fact, normal value sets have been obtained from studies whose accuracy was reduced by important limitations, such as small sample size, low grade of heterogeneity of the population enrolled, poor rigorousness of methods, or difficulty in interpreting results. Accordingly, the aim of the present review is threefold: (A) to report some illustrative cases to show how the choice of the normal value set can influence the report of CPET; (B) to describe the most known and used reference value sets, highlighting the main characteristics of sample population, the most important methodological aspects, and the major limitations of the studies; (C) to suggest which equation should be used, if any, and to underline its weakness.
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.