Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31217992›Full record

ArticleOpen heart

From randomised controlled trial to real world implementation of a novel home-based heart failure tool: pooled and comparative analyses of two clinical controlled trials.

Ann Hovland-Tånneryd, Michael Melin, Ewa Hägglund, Inger Hagerman, Hans E Persson

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open heart. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03655496 (Patient-centred Home-based Management of Heart Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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.

NCT03655496 phase1completednot on this map

Patient-centred Home-based Management of Heart Failure

TypeinterventionalSponsorCareLigo ABRan2013 to 2013Enrolled82ConditionsHeart FailureArmsHome-based tool
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
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

5 authors.

Ann Hovland-TånnerydHemse Health Central, Region Gotland, Visby, Sweden.
Michael MelinHeart and Vascular Theme, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ewa HägglundHeart and Vascular Theme, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Inger HagermanHeart and Vascular Theme, Karolinska Universitetssjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden.
Hans E PerssonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: A home-based tool for heart failure (HF) patients, was evaluated in a specialist setting as a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and also in a validation cohort in a primary care setting in a clinical controlled trial (CCT). The tool provides education, symptom monitoring and titration of diuretics. The aim of this study was thus to extend validity of the previous RCT findings in order to describe applicability of the tool in clinical practice. Methods: Data from both trials were analysed separately, as well as a pooled data set (n=172). Data were analysed with respect to HF related in-hospital days, self-care behaviour and system adherence, during a 6-month intervention. The analysis of in-hospital days for the pooled data was adjusted for baseline differences between the two study cohorts, relating to disease state. Results: In the RCT (n=72) the intervention group (IG) consisted of 32 patients and the control group (CG) of 40 patients. The risk ratio (RR) for in-hospital days was RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.84, p<0.05 in favour of the IG. In the CCT (n=100) both the IG and the CG consisted of 50 patients and the IG had fewer in-hospitals days, comparable to the RCT findings with RR: 0.67; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99; p<0.05. For the pooled data set made up of 172 patients, the groups were well balanced but with a higher prevalence of hypertension in the CG. The RR relating to in-hospital days for the pooled data set was 0.71; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.82; p<0.05 in favour of the IG. There was a statistically significant improvement in self-care by 27% and the median system adherence was 94%. Conclusions: These analyses suggest that the evaluated tool might reduce HF related in-hospital days in the general HF population, which adds to the external validity of previous findings.Clinical Trial Registration NCT03655496.

Indexed as

delivery of careheart failureheart failure treatmentmHealthprimary care

Identifiers

PMID31217992
PMCPMC6546184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.