Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30062623›Full record

ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2018

Heart Failure and Stroke.

Katja Schumacher, Jelena Kornej, Eduard Shantsila, Gregory Y H Lip

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current heart failure reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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.

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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Atherosclerotic features in patients with heart failure.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Mechanical thrombectomy in patients with heart failure: the Italian registry of Endovascular Treatment in Acute Stroke.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Katja SchumacherInstitute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Jelena KornejHeart Center, Department of Electrophysiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Eduard ShantsilaInstitute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Gregory Y H LipInstitute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. g.y.h.lip@bham.ac.uk.
Leipzig Heart Institute · DEUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIschemic stroke significantly contributes to morbidity and mortality in heart failure (HF). The risk of stroke increases significantly, with coexisting atrial fibrillation (AF). An aggravating factor could be asymptomatic paroxysms of AF (so-called silent AF), and therefore, the risk stratification in these patients remains difficult. This review provides an overview of stroke risk in HF, its risk stratification, and stroke prevention in these patients. RECENT

findingsStroke risk stratification in HF patients remains an important issue. Recently, the CHA

Indexed as

Brain IschemiaHeart FailureRisk AssessmentAge FactorsGlobal HealthHumansMorbidityRisk FactorsSecondary PreventionSurvival RateHeart failureRisk stratificationSilent atrial fibrillationStrokeStroke prevention

Identifiers

PMID30062623
PMCPMC6132785
OpenAlexW2886016318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.