Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28940089›Full record

ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2017

Skeletal muscle alterations in HFrEF vs. HFpEF.

Volker Adams, Axel Linke, Ephraim Winzer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current heart failure reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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.

Volker AdamsClinic of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig, Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany. adav@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Axel LinkeClinic of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig, Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany.
Ephraim WinzerClinic of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig, Strümpellstrasse 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewSevere exercise intolerance and early fatigue are hallmarks of heart failure patients either with a reduced (HFrEF) or a still preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction. This review, therefore, will provide a contemporary summary of the alterations currently known to occur in the skeletal muscles of both HFrEF and HFpEF, and provide some further directions that will be required if we want to improve our current understanding of this area. RECENT

findingsSkeletal muscle alterations are well documented for over 20 years in HFrEF, and during the recent years also data are presented that in HFpEF muscular alterations are present. Alterations are ranging from a shift in fiber type and capillarization to an induction of atrophy and modulation of mitochondrial energy supply. In general, the molecular alterations are more severe in the skeletal muscle of HFrEF when compared to HFpEF. The alterations occurring in the skeletal muscle at the molecular level may contribute to exercise intolerance in HFrEF and HFpEF. Nevertheless, the knowledge of changes in the skeletal muscle of HFpEF is still sparsely available and more studies in this HF cohort are clearly warranted.

Indexed as

ExerciseHeart FailureHumansMuscle, SkeletalOxygen ConsumptionStroke VolumeHeart failureHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionHeart failure with reduced ejection fractionSkeletal muscle

Identifiers

PMID28940089

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.