ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2015
The Current and Potential Clinical Relevance of Heart Failure Biomarkers.
Review in Current heart failure reports, 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.
- Advancements in Biomarkers for Early Detection and Risk Stratification of Cardiovascular Diseases-A Literature Review.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Changes in transcriptomic landscape in human end-stage heart failure with distinct etiology.iScience · 2022Article
- UMBRELLA protocol: systematic reviews of multivariable biomarker prognostic models developed to predict clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2020Article
- Natriuretic peptide family as diagnostic/prognostic biomarker and treatment modality in management of adult and geriatric patients with heart failure: remaining issues and challenges.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2018Review
- Novel Biomarkers for the Risk Stratification of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.Current heart failure reports · 2017Review
- Targeting LOXL2 for cardiac interstitial fibrosis and heart failure treatment.Nature communications · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure is a growing epidemic, and our understanding of the intricacies of its pathophysiology continues to evolve. Over the last decade, biomarkers of heart failure have been extensively investigated, particularly for diagnosis and risk stratification. While the natriuretic peptides remain the gold standard heart failure biomarker, they are plagued by their non-specific nature; furthermore, the strategy of natriuretic peptide-guided care remains elusive. Multiple candidate markers indicative of other physiologic aspects of heart failure have been identified and studied, including soluble ST2, galectin-3, and high-sensitivity cardiac troponins. Each of these biomarkers has the potential to provide unique therapeutically relevant information. Ultimately, a multi-marker approach may be applied to improve care of patients with heart failure. Definitive clinical trials and the use of advanced statistical analytic techniques are needed to truly determine the optimal strategy of biomarker-assisted diagnosis, prognostication, and management of patients who suffer from this devastating condition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26280466What 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.