Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30874755›Full record

SynthesisJAMA2019

Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018.

Alexander C Fanaroff, Robert M Califf, Stephan Windecker, Sidney C Smith, Renato D Lopes

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Representativeness in randomised clinical trials supporting acute coronary syndrome guidelines.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2023
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Trust in Observational Research.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Mind the gap: transcatheter edge to edge repairAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alexander C FanaroffDivision of Cardiology and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Robert M CaliffDuke Forge, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina.
Stephan WindeckerDepartment of Cardiology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Sidney C SmithDivision of Cardiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
Renato D LopesDivision of Cardiology and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Clinical decisions are ideally based on evidence generated from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical outcomes, but historically, few clinical guideline recommendations have been based entirely on this type of evidence. Objective: To determine the class and level of evidence (LOE) supporting current major cardiovascular society guideline recommendations, and changes in LOE over time. Data Sources: Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guideline documents (2008-2018), as identified on cardiovascular society websites, and immediate predecessors to these guideline documents (1999-2014), as referenced in current guideline documents. Study Selection: Comprehensive guideline documents including recommendations organized by class and LOE. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The number of recommendations and the distribution of LOE (A [supported by data from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT], B [supported by data from observational studies or a single RCT], and C [supported by expert opinion only]) were determined for each guideline document. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of guideline recommendations supported by evidence from multiple RCTs (LOE A). Results: Across 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines (2930 recommendations; median, 121 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 76-155]), 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A, 1465 (50.0%) as LOE B, and 1217 (41.5%) as LOE C. The median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%). Across 25 current ESC guideline documents (3399 recommendations; median, 130 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 111-154]), 484 recommendations (14.2%) were classified as LOE A, 1053 (31.0%) as LOE B, and 1862 (54.8%) as LOE C. When comparing current guidelines with prior versions, the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not increase in either ACC/AHA (median, 9.0% [current] vs 11.7% [prior]) or ESC guidelines (median, 15.1% [current] vs 17.6% [prior]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines, only a small percentage were supported by evidence from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT. This pattern does not appear to have meaningfully improved from 2008 to 2018.

Indexed as

CardiologyEvidence-Based MedicinePractice Guidelines as TopicSocieties, MedicalAmerican Heart AssociationCardiovascular DiseasesEuropeObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30874755
PMCPMC6439920

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.