Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27567626›Full record

ReviewHeart failure reviews2017

Obesity paradox in heart failure: statistical artifact, or impetus to rethink clinical practice?

Richard Charnigo, Maya Guglin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Heart failure reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. The failing of the obesity paradox in the failing heart.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2018
    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.

Richard CharnigoDepartments of Statistics and Biostatistics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Maya GuglinGill Heart Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. mguglin@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "obesity paradox" in heart failure (HF) is a phenomenon of more favorable prognosis, especially better survival, in obese versus normal-weight HF patients. Various explanations for the paradox have been offered; while different in their details, they typically share the premise that obesity per se is not actually the cause of reduced mortality in HF. Even so, there is a lingering question of whether clinicians should refrain from, or at least soft-pedal on, encouraging weight loss among their obese HF patients. Against the backdrop of recent epidemiological analysis by Banack and Kaufman, which speculates that collider stratification bias may generate the obesity paradox, we seek to address the aforementioned question. Following a literature review, which confirms that obese HF patients are demographically and clinically different from their normal-weight counterparts, we present four hypothetical data sets to illustrate a spectrum of possibilities regarding the obesity-mortality association. Importantly, these hypothetical data sets become indistinguishable from each other when a crucial variable is unmeasured or unreported. While thorough, the discussion of these data sets is intended to be accessible to a wide audience, especially including clinicians, without a prerequisite of familiarity with advanced epidemiology. We also furnish intuitive visual diagrams which depict a version of the obesity paradox. These illustrations, along with reflection on the distinction between weight and weight loss (and, furthermore, between voluntary and involuntary weight loss), lead to our recommendation for clinicians regarding the encouragement of weight loss. Finally, our conclusion explicitly addresses the questions posed in the title of this article.

Indexed as

ArtifactsBody Mass IndexConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicGlobal HealthHeart FailureHumansObesityPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSurvival RateAnscombe quartetCollider stratification biasConfoundingHeart failureObesityObesity paradoxReverse causalitySimpson’s paradoxWeight loss

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.