Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28785439›Full record

ArticleCardiac failure review2015

Fluid Management in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure.

Pierpaolo Pellicori, Kuldeep Kaur, Andrew L Clark

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiac failure review, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06128655 (Developing and Testing a Nurse-Led Technology-Enhanced Family Engagement Program), which is not on this map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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.

NCT06128655 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Developing and Testing a Nurse-Led Technology-Enhanced Family Engagement Program (NURSE-TECH-Family) Among Critically Ill Patients in ICU: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorRutgers, The State University of New JerseyRan2024 to 2025Enrolled29ConditionsCritical IllnessArmsParticipation in PFCC-IR
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pierpaolo PellicoriDepartment of Cardiology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull York Medical School (at University of Hull), Kingston upon Hull, UK.
Kuldeep KaurDepartment of Cardiology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull York Medical School (at University of Hull), Kingston upon Hull, UK.
Andrew L ClarkDepartment of Cardiology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull York Medical School (at University of Hull), Kingston upon Hull, UK.
Castle Hill Hospital · GBHull York Medical School · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Congestion, or fluid overload, is a classic clinical feature of patients presenting with heart failure patients, and its presence is associated with adverse outcome. However, congestion is not always clinically evident, and more objective measures of congestion than simple clinical examination may be helpful. Although diuretics are the mainstay of treatment for congestion, no randomised trials have shown the effects of diuretics on mortality in chronic heart failure patients. Furthermore, appropriate titration of diuretics in this population is unclear. Research is required to determine whether a robust method of detecting - and then treating - subclinical congestion improves outcomes.

Indexed as

chronic heart failurecongestionDiureticsreviewtreatment

Identifiers

PMID28785439
PMCPMC5490880
OpenAlexW2801697872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.