ArticlePloS one2016
Clinical Evaluation of Heart Failure: Agreement among Tests.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Methods commonly used clinically to assess cardiac function in patients with heart failure include ejection fraction (EF), exercise treadmill testing (ETT), and symptom evaluation. Although these approaches are useful in evaluating patients with heart failure, there are at times substantial mismatches between individual assessments. For example, ETT results are often discordant with EF, and patients with minimal symptoms sometimes have surprisingly low EFs. To better define the relationship of these methods of assessment, we studied 56 patients with heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF) who underwent measurement of ETT duration, EF by echocardiography, quantitative symptom evaluation, and LV peak dP/dt (rate of left ventricular pressure development and decline, measured invasively). Correlations were determined among these four tests in order to assess the relationship of EF, ETT, and symptoms against LV peak dP/dt. In addition, we sought to determine whether EF, ETT, and symptoms correlated with each other. Overall, correlations were poor. Only 15 of 63 total correlations (24%) were significant (p < 0.05). EF correlated most closely with LV peak -dP/dt. Linear regression analysis indicated that EF, ETT, and symptoms taken together predicted LV peak dP/dt better than any one measure alone. We conclude that clinical tests used to assess LV function in patients with HFrEF may not be as accurate or correlate as well as expected. All three clinical measures considered together may be the best representation of cardiac function in HFrEF patients currently available.
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.