ArticleThe European journal of general practice2017
Validation of heart failure diagnosis registered in primary care records in two primary care centres in Barcelona (Spain) and factors related. A cross-sectional study.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- On the search for the right definition of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Cardiology journal · 2020Trial
- Heart failure patients without echocardiography are more commonly diagnosed in hospital care and are associated with higher mortality compared to primary care.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2024Article
- Machine learning optimization of an electronic health record audit for heart failure in primary care.ESC heart failure · 2022Observational
- Do we need a definition of acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?Annals of medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Validity of Acute Cardiovascular Outcome Diagnoses Recorded in European Electronic Health Records: A Systematic Review.Clinical epidemiology · 2020Review
- Chronic heart failure management in primary healthcare in Poland: Results of a nationwide cross-sectional study.The European journal of general practice · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure (HF) diagnosis as reported in primary care medical records is not always properly confirmed and could result in over-registration.
objectivesTo determine the proportion of registered HF that can be confirmed with information from primary care medical records and to analyse related factors.
methodsA cross-sectional study. The medical records of 595 HF patients attended in two primary healthcare centres in Barcelona (Spain) were revised and validated by a team of experts who classified diagnosis into confirmed, unconfirmed, and misdiagnosis. Variables potentially related to the confirmation of the diagnosis were analysed. The revision of medical records and data collection took place from 15 January to 31 March 2014.
resultsMean (standard deviation) age was 78 (10) years and 58% were women. The diagnosis could be confirmed in 53.6% of patients. Factors associated with a greater probability of having a confirmed diagnosis were age (yearly OR: 0.97, 95%CI: 0.95-0.99), cardiologist follow-up (OR: 3.66, 95%CI: 2.46-5.48), history of ischaemic heart disease (OR: 2.18, 95%CI: 1.36-2.48), atrial fibrillation (OR: 2.01, 95%CI: 1.34-3.03), and prescription of loop diuretics (OR: 3.24, 95%CI: 2.14-4.89).
conclusionOnly in half of the patients labelled as HF in primary care medical records could this diagnosis be further confirmed. Variables regularly registered in clinical practice could help general practitioners identify those patients requiring a revision of their HF diagnosis.
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.