ReviewMethodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal
Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock.
Review in Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiogenic Shock Centers and Protocols for Acute Cardiovascular Care: Bridging the Gap Between Spoke and Hub Sites.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Review
- The Management of Cardiogenic Shock From Diagnosis to Devices: A Narrative Review.CHEST critical care · 2024Article
- Early Recognition and Risk Stratification in Cardiogenic Shock: Well Begun Is Half Done.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Hemodynamic-based Assessment and Management of Cardiogenic Shock.US cardiology · 2022Review
- Systems of Care in Cardiogenic Shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock presents a significant challenge to the medical community, and there is much debate as to the best classification system and treatment mechanisms. As interventions and technologies improve, systems of care for patients with cardiogenic shock must evolve as well. This review describes the current treatment models for cardiogenic shock, including the "hub-and-spoke" model, and defines specific characteristics of the ideal system of care for this patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.