ReviewCurrent cardiology reviews
Phase 4 Studies in Heart Failure - What is Done and What is Needed?
Review in Current cardiology reviews. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Confirming the performance of new coronary stent platforms by systematic registry-based cluster-randomised evaluation of their implementation in clinical practice.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Trial
- Burden from Study Questionnaire on Patient Fatigue in Qualitative Congestive Heart Failure Research.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
- Challenges of Health Data Use in Multidisciplinary Chronic Disease Care: Perspective from Heart Failure Care.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- The Wider Considerations in Closing Chronic Disease Gaps - Focus on Heart Failure and Implementation.Current cardiology reviews · 2023Review
- Perspective on 'Phase V' or Logistics and Regression as Logical Progression for Community Heart Failure Triage.Current cardiology reviews · 2022Article
- Common Comorbidities that Alter Heart Failure Prognosis - Shaping New Thinking for Practice.Current cardiology reviews · 2021Review
- The Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Conundrum-Redefining the Problem and Finding Common Ground?Current heart failure reports · 2020Review
- Acute kidney injury associated with febuxostat and allopurinol: a post-marketing study.Arthritis research & therapy · 2019Article
- Non-invasive Risk Stratification for Coronary Artery Disease: Is It Time for Subclassifications?Current cardiology reports · 2019Review
- Risk stratification for coronary artery disease in multi-ethnic populations: Are there broader considerations for cost efficiency?World journal of methodology · 2019Review
- 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
- Moving From Heart Failure Guidelines to Clinical Practice: Gaps Contributing to Readmissions in Patients With Multiple Comorbidities and Older Age.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2018Article
- A Review of the External Validity of Clinical Trials with Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2016Review
- 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
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congestive heart failure (CHF) therapeutics is generated through a well-described evidence generating process. Phases 1 - 3 of this process are required prior to approval and widespread clinical use. Phase 3 in almost all cases is a methodologically sound randomized controlled trial (RCT). After this phase it is generally accepted that the treatment has a significant, independent and prognostically beneficial effect on the pathophysiological process. A major criticism of RCTs is the population to whom the result is applicable. When this population is significantly different from the trial cohort the external validity comes into question. Should the continuation of the evidence generating process continue these problems might be identified. Post marketing surveillance through phase 4 and comparative effectiveness studies through phase 5 trials are often underperformed in comparison to the RCT. These processes can help identify remote adverse events and define new hypotheses for community level benefits. This review is aimed at exploring the post-marketing scene for CHF therapeutics from an Australian health system perspective. We explore the phases of clinical trials, the level of evidence currently available and options for ensuring greater accountability for community level CHF clinical outcomes.
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.