ArticleHeart and vessels2019
Discrepancy between patient-reported quality of life and the prognostic assessment of Japanese patients hospitalized with acute heart failure.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2019. 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.
- Comprehensive symptom assessment using Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale in hospitalized heart failure patients.ESC heart failure · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient-reported quality of life (PRQL) is a primary therapeutic target for patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and is associated with long-term prognosis. However, its utility in hospitalized HF (HHF) patients in the acute setting remains unclear. We aimed to assess the utility of PRQL (the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ]) in HHF patients and its association with long-term prognosis as well as with the clinical risk score (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure [GWTG-HF] risk score). PRQL was evaluated using the KCCQ in consecutive 114 HHF patients. Its association with the composite outcome of all-cause mortality or HF readmission within the first year after discharge was analyzed. Furthermore, its distribution by the clinical risk score (GWTG-HF) was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient. The median KCCQ was 34.9, but was widely distributed (interquartile range 23.7-56.8). After adjustment for known prognostic indicators, the KCCQ was not an independent predictor of the composite outcome within the first year (group with high vs. low KCCQ scores: hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval 0.26-1.71). There was no significant correlation between the KCCQ and the GWTG-HF risk score. In conclusion, PRQL during the acute phase of HF was significantly impaired and also varied widely, irrespective of patient characteristics or severity. PRQL assessment and risk prediction for HHF patients in the acute setting seemed to provide two distinct types of information for health care providers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30887105What 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.