Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26644393›Full record

GuidelineHerz2015

[Progress or regress or both? ESC guidelines on pericardial diseases 2015].

B Maisch, European Society of Cardiology

Abstract readEnglish AbstractPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Herz, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

B MaischHerz- und Gefässzentrum (HGZ) Marburg, *Emeritierter Direktor der Klinik für Innere Medizin, Kardiologie und Internistische Intensivmedizin der Philipps-Universität und UKGM, HGZ Marburg, privat: Feldbergstr. 45, 35043, Marburg, Deutschland. bermaisch@gmail.com.
European Society of Cardiology

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eleven years after the publication of the first guidelines worldwide on pericardial diseases by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), the international expert group of the ESC has updated the original document of 28 pages with 275 references. The final version of the new guidelines is more voluminous with 44 pages of recommendations but only 233 references. A continuing medical education (CME) certified update of the 2004 guidelines was published in the journal Herz volume 7/2014. In comparison to 2004 the 2015 guidelines have remained virtually unchanged in the sections detailing diagnostics, differential diagnosis, pathology and pathophysiology. Substantial progress has been made in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of pericarditis and epicarditis and in the practically universal recommendation of colchicine for all forms of pericarditis and pericardial effusion, whether acute, chronic or recurrent. This can truly be called progress; however, little has changed since 2004 even in tertiary referral centers or universities with respect to the etiological classification of acute or recurrent forms of pericarditis or pericardial effusion. By classifying pericardial syndromes much too often as idiopathic when a malignant or bacterial cause has been excluded, the underlying cause is often overlooked. Standstill in diagnosis is in the end regress because we too often lag behind our actual diagnostic and interventional possibilities.

Indexed as

Bacterial InfectionsCardiologyDiagnosis, DifferentialDiagnostic Techniques, CardiovascularEuropeEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPericarditisCardiac tamponadeCytologyPericardial and epicardial biopsyPericardioscopyPericarditis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.