Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31803329›Full record

ReviewCardiology research2019

Risk Stratification for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Abdul Ahad Khan, Ghulam Murtaza, Muhammad F Khalid, Furqan Khattak

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cardiology research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cost-effectiveness of TAVI in the United Kingdom: a long-term analysis based on 4-year data from the Evolut Low Risk Trial.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Abdul Ahad KhanDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA.
Ghulam MurtazaDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA.
Muhammad F KhalidDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA.
Furqan KhattakDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA.
East Tennessee State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk assessment models developed from administrative and clinical databases are used for clinical decision making. Since these models are derived from a database, they have an inherent limitation of being as good as the data they are derived from. Many of these models under or overestimate certain clinical outcomes particularly mortality in certain group of patients. Undeniably, there is significant variability in all these models on account of patient population studied, the statistical analysis used to develop the model and the period during which these models were developed. This review aims to shed light on development and application of risk assessment models for cardiac surgery with special emphasis on risk stratification in severe aortic stenosis to select patients for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Indexed as

Risk assessment modelRisk stratificationSociety of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of MortalitySurgical aortic valve replacementTranscatheter aortic valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID31803329
PMCPMC6879047
OpenAlexW2990770848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.