Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32048239›Full record

ReviewPulmonary therapy2020

Diagnosis and Management of Pulmonary Hypertension in the Modern Era: Insights from the 6th World Symposium.

Christopher A Thomas, Ryan J Anderson, David F Condon, Vinicio A de Jesus Perez

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pulmonary therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interleukin-6 is critical in the development of pulmonary vascular disease inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Christopher A ThomasDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Ryan J AndersonDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
David F CondonDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Vinicio A de Jesus PerezDivision of Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. vdejesus@stanford.edu.
Stanford University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The past 20 years have seen major advances in the diagnosis and management of pulmonary hypertension, a disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The 6th World Symposium in Pulmonary Hypertension (WSPH) took place in February 2018 and attempted to consolidate the current knowledge in the field into practical recommendations to help prioritize an action plan to improve patient outcomes and identify future research directions. In this review, we will summarize the highlights of the 6th WSPH proceedings, including revisions to the hemodynamic definitions and classification of the various types of pulmonary hypertension, genetic advances, approaches to risk stratification, and updated treatment algorithms.

Indexed as

GeneticsHemodynamicsPulmonary hypertensionPulmonary vascular diseaseRisk stratificationScreening

Identifiers

PMID32048239
PMCPMC7229067
OpenAlexW2990994862

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.