ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2016
European Guidelines on Pericardial Diseases: a Focused Review of Novel Aspects.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Burden and Unmet Need in Recurrent Pericarditis: A Systematic Literature Review.Cardiology in reviewPooled it
- The impact of pericardial disruption on heart function and remodeling after myocardial infarction in mice.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- A Deep Learning Algorithm for Detecting Acute Pericarditis by Electrocardiogram.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- A Previously Healthy Teenager with Anasarca.Pediatrics in review · 2021Article
- Recurrent pericarditis: still idiopathic? The pros and cons of a well-honoured term.Internal and emergency medicine · 2018Review
- Recurrent pericarditis as an extra-intestinal manifestation of ulcerative colitis in a 14-year-old girl.Clinical case reports · 2018Article
- Clinical and historical features of emergency department patients with pericardial effusions.World journal of emergency medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pericardial diseases are not uncommon in daily clinical practice. The spectrum of these syndromes includes acute and chronic pericarditis, pericardial effusion, constrictive pericarditis, congenital defects, and neoplasms. The extent of the high-quality evidence on pericardial diseases has expanded significantly since the first international guidelines on pericardial disease management were published by the European Society of Cardiology in 2004. The clinical practice guidelines provide a useful reference for physicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient by summarizing the current state of knowledge in a particular field. The new clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases that have been published by the European Society of Cardiology in 2015 represent such a tool and focus on assisting the physicians in their daily clinical practice. The aim of this review is to outline and emphasize the most clinically relevant new aspects of the current guidelines as compared with its previous version published in 2004.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27007597What 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.