ArticlePediatric cardiology2015
Evaluation of the diagnostic work-up in children with myocarditis and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric dilated cardiomyopathy and the progression to heart failure: mechanisms and interventions focusing on the "gene-inflammation-metabolism" axis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Genetic Evaluation of A Nation-Wide Dutch Pediatric DCM Cohort: The Use of Genetic Testing in Risk Stratification.Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine · 2022Observational
- Predicting outcome in children with dilated cardiomyopathy: the use of repeated measurements of risk factors for outcome.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The underlying etiology of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in children varies, 14-22% is secondary to myocarditis, and the majority remains idiopathic. Etiology has prognostic value; however, 'a clinical diagnosis of myocarditis' has been frequently used because the gold standard [endomyocardial biopsy (EMB)] is often not performed. Therefore, a consistent diagnostic approach and interpretation is needed. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the diagnostic approach and interpretation of the viral results in children with myocarditis and idiopathic DCM. We included 150 children with DCM, of whom 103 were assigned the diagnosis myocarditis (n = 21) or idiopathic DCM (n = 82) by the attending physician. Viral tests were performed in 97/103 patients, in only 34% (n = 35) some of the tests were positive. Of those patients, we evaluated the probability of the assigned diagnosis using the viral test results. We classified viral test results as reflecting definite or probable myocarditis in 14 children and possible or unlikely myocarditis in 21 children. Based on this classification, 23% of patients were misclassified. We found that in children with DCM, the diagnostic approach varied and the interpretation was mainly based on viral results. Since a 'clinical diagnosis of myocarditis' has been frequently used in daily practice because of the lack of EMB results, a uniform protocol is needed. We propose to use viral test results in several steps (blood PCR, serology, PCR and/or cultures of the gastro-intestinal and respiratory tract, and EMB results) to estimate the probability of myocarditis.
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.