ReviewClinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology2015
Bedside-to-Bench Translational Research for Chronic Heart Failure: Creating an Agenda for Clients Who Do Not Meet Trial Enrollment Criteria.
Review in Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Conundrum-Redefining the Problem and Finding Common Ground?Current heart failure reports · 2020Review
- Perspectives On Optimizing Chronic Heart Failure Care Beyond Randomised Controlled Trials - What do we Consolidate and how do we Plan for the Future?Current cardiology reviews · 2019Article
- A Review of the External Validity of Clinical Trials with Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2016Review
- Phase 4 Studies in Heart Failure - What is Done and What is Needed?Current cardiology reviewsReview
- Heart Failure in Minority Populations - Impediments to Optimal Treatment in Australian Aborigines.Current cardiology reviewsReview
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a chronic condition usually without cure. Significant developments, particularly those addressing pathophysiology, mainly started at the bench. This approach has seen many clinical observations initially explored at the bench, subsequently being trialed at the bedside, and eventually translated into clinical practice. This evidence, however, has several limitations, importantly the generalizability or external validity. We now acknowledge that clinical management of CHF is more complicated than merely translating bench-to-bedside evidence in a linear fashion. This review aims to help explore this evolving area from an Australian perspective. We describe the continuation of research once core evidence is established and describe how clinician-scientist collaboration with a bedside-to-bench view can help enhance evidence translation and generalizability. We describe why an extension of the available evidence or generating new evidence is occasionally needed to address the increasingly diverse cohort of patients. Finally, we explore some of the tools used by basic scientists and clinicians to develop evidence and describe the ones we feel may be most beneficial.
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.