Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31741232›Full record

ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2019

Utility of Urine Biomarkers and Electrolytes for the Management of Heart Failure.

Frederik Hendrik Verbrugge

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current heart failure reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The value of urinary sodium assessment in acute heart failure.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Inpatient Diuretic Management of Acute Heart Failure: A Practical Review.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2021
    Review
  9. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Frederik Hendrik VerbruggeDepartment of General Internal Medicine, UZ Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. frederik.verbrugge@zol.be.
KU Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo provide insight into the role of urine biomarkers and electrolytes for the management of heart failure. RECENT

findingsThe age-dependent decrease in glomerular filtration rate due to loss of functional nephrons occurs at a faster pace in heart failure, potentially exacerbated by episodes of acute kidney injury. Urine biomarkers have not convincingly demonstrated to improve detection of irreversible renal damage and predict long-term renal trajectories, compared with serial creatinine measurements. Recent data show that natriuresis and diuretic response track poorly with glomerular filtration, but strongly with prognosis. Urine sodium concentration > 50-70 mmol/L was recently put forward through expert consensus as an adequate diuretic response. The value of urine biomarkers to detect structural renal damage in heart failure remains unsure and the latter is probably uncommon, especially over short-term follow-up. Urine electrolytes on the other hand predict diuretic response accurately and may allow better diuretic titration.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryAlbuminuriaBiomarkersDiureticsDrug MonitoringGlomerular Filtration RateHeart FailureHumansKidney Failure, ChronicNephronsSodiumBiomarkersDiureticsSodiumAcute kidney injuryBiomarkersDiureticsElectrolytesHeart failureNatriuresis

Identifiers

PMID31741232
OpenAlexW2984136416

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.