ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2019
The Approach to the Psychosocial Evaluation of Cardiac Transplant and Mechanical Circulatory Support Candidates.
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 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms in Patients on Ventricular Assist Device Support: Something to Worry About?Clinical transplantation · 2026Article
- Article
- An overview of the association between socioeconomic deprivation and heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- A narrative review on the psychosocial domains of the impact of organ transplantation.Discover mental health · 2025Review
- Individual-Level Socioeconomic Position and Long-Term Prognosis in Danish Heart-Transplant Recipients.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023Article
- A Cascade of Structural Barriers Contributing to Racial Kidney Transplant Inequities.Advances in chronic kidney disease · 2021Review
- Psychosocial Risk and Its Association With Outcomes in Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients.Circulation. Heart failure · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewWe update evidence underlying the recommendations of a 2018 multi-society consensus report regarding the psychosocial evaluation of individuals for cardiothoracic transplantation and mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In the present review, we focus on heart transplantation and MCS. RECENT
findingsExpert opinion and new evidence support the inclusion of ten core content areas in the psychosocial evaluation. Prospective data indicate that psychosocial factors can predict post-transplantation/post-implantation outcomes. Such factors include treatment adherence history, mental health and substance use history, cognitive impairment, knowledge about treatment options, and social factors such as socioeconomic status. For other factors (e.g., coping, social support), new evidence is weaker because it derives largely from cross-sectional studies. Concerning evaluation process issues, expert opinion remains consistent with consensus recommendations, but there is a dearth of empirical evidence. The psychosocial evaluation can identify factors relevant for candidacy for heart transplantation and MCS implantation. It enables the provision of interventions to improve patients' viability as candidates, and facilitates care planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31782078What 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.