ArticleHeart failure reviews2015
Site selection for heart failure clinical trials in the USA.
Article in Heart failure reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pragmatic Design of Randomized Clinical Trials for Heart Failure: Rationale and Design of the TRANSFORM-HF Trial.JACC. Heart failure · 2021Review
- Heart Failure Site-Based Research in the United States: Results of the Heart Failure Society of America Research Network Survey.JACC. Heart failure · 2019Article
- Evolving Landscape of Clinical Trials in Heart Failure: Patient Populations, Endpoint Selection, and Regions of Enrollment.Current heart failure reports · 2018Review
- Designing Future Clinical Trials in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Lessons From TOPCAT.Current heart failure reports · 2017Review
- Impact of Site Selection and Study Conduct on Outcomes in Global Clinical Trials.Current heart failure reports · 2017Review
- [A Comparison of Methods for Modeling Factors Associated with Hospital Admissions in Incident Cases of Heart Failure].Revista espanola de salud publica · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are more than 1 million primary hospitalizations for heart failure (HF) annually in the USA alone, and post-discharge outcomes remain persistently poor despite available therapies and quality improvement initiatives. Recent international randomized clinical trials in hospitalized HF have repeatedly failed to improve this post-discharge event rate. A potential reason for this persistent lack of clinical trial success that has not previously received significant attention relates to site selection and the generally low level of patient enrollment from the USA. Only ~5 % of US hospitals participate in clinical trials, and in four recent randomized trials of hospitalized HF, only one-third of patients were enrolled in North America. This poor participation among US centers has necessitated disproportionate enrollment from non-US sites. Regional variations in HF patient characteristics and clinical outcomes are well documented, and a lack of US patient representation in clinical trials limits the generalizability of results and presents obstacles for US regulatory agency approval. There are multiple impediments to successful US enrollment including a lack of incentive for investigators and institutions, the relative value unit-based compensation system, poor institutional framework for identification of appropriate patients, and increasing liability to conduct trials. In this manuscript, we specifically identify barriers to successful hospitalized HF clinical trial participation in the USA and suggest possible solutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25649127What 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.