ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2013
Incorporating common biomarkers into the clinical management of heart failure.
Review in Current heart failure reports, 2013. 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.
- The Effect of Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy on Cardiac Biomarkers: Implications for the Identification of Myocardial Recovery.Current heart failure reports · 2018Review
- The Change in Body Weight During Hospitalization Predicts Mortality in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2017Article
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
Heart failure is a prevalent and costly disease, and its management with polypharmacy is complex. Commonly available biomarkers primarily help to 1) establish or refute the diagnosis of heart failure; 2) help to determine the disease severity; and 3) identify adverse consequences of treatment. Although several of them are commonly ordered (such as electrolytes, renal and liver function), their use is primarily based on broad clinical experience rather than established evidence. The availability of cardiac-specific natriuretic peptide testing has provided an evidence-based breakthrough in our abilities to establish the diagnosis and severity of heart failure, yet the appropriate boundaries to guide management are still in refinement.
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.