ArticleCardiology research2017
A Case of Multifaceted Assessment in an Elderly Patient With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.
Article in Cardiology research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) is a common health problem worldwide, including in Japan. Unfortunately, patient outcomes remain poor, with a 5-year survival rate of approximately 50%. Therefore, we need to assess the precise conditions, including cardiac function, in patients with HF, particularly in the elderly. We performed a multifaceted assessment in an elderly patient with HF on admission and at discharge using eight different evaluations (the mean life expectancy using the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), the severity of dementia, nutrition, medication adherence, biomarker (the level of brain natriuretic peptide in blood), sociality, performance and comorbidity). Each parameter was scored on a 5-point scale (excellent = 5 points; good = 4 points; fair (average) = 3 points; poor = 2 points; failure = 1 point; maximum total points of 40) (
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.