ArticleOpen heart
Reporting trends of randomised controlled trials in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review.
Article in Open heart. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Temporal Trends and Factors Associated With the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Drug treatment effects on outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2018Pooled it
- Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Pooled it
- CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Completeness of reporting of quality improvement studies in neonatology is inadequate: a systematic literature survey.BMJ open quality · 2021Article
- Assessment of the reporting quality of RCTs for novel oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolic disease based on the CONSORT statement.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2019Review
- Aspirin in primary prevention: the triumph of clinical judgement over complex equations.Internal and emergency medicine · 2019Review
- Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) causes significant cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Current consensus guidelines reflect the neutral results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Adequate trial reporting is a fundamental requirement before concluding on RCT intervention efficacy and is necessary for accurate meta-analysis and to provide insight into future trial design. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement provides a framework for complete trial reporting. Reporting quality of HFpEF RCTs has not been previously assessed, and this represents an important validation of reporting qualities to date.
objectivesThe aim was to systematically identify RCTs investigating the efficacy of pharmacological therapies in HFpEF and to assess the quality of reporting using the CONSORT 2010 statement.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1996 to November 2015, with RCTs assessing pharmacological therapies on clinical outcomes in HFpEF patients included. The quality of reporting was assessed against the CONSORT 2010 checklist.
resultsA total of 33 RCTs were included. The mean CONSORT score was 55.4% (SD 17.2%). The CONSORT score was strongly correlated with journal impact factor (r=0.53, p=0.003) and publication year (r=0.50, p=0.003). Articles published after the introduction of CONSORT 2010 statement had a significantly higher mean score compared with those published before (64% vs 50%, p=0.02).
conclusionsAlthough the CONSORT score has increased with time, a significant proportion of HFpEF RCTs showed inadequate reporting standards. The level of adherence to CONSORT criteria could have an impact on the validity of trials and hence the interpretation of intervention efficacy. We recommend improving compliance with the CONSORT statement for future RCTs.
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.