ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2020
UMBRELLA protocol: systematic reviews of multivariable biomarker prognostic models developed to predict clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure.
Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natriuretic peptides testing and survival prediction models for chronic heart failure: a systematic review of added prognostic value.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2025Review
- Advanced Parameters of Myocardial Strain and Cardiac Biomarkers Indicate Subclinical Systolic Myocardial Dysfunction in Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematous.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- The Prognostic Role of Global Longitudinal Strain and NT-proBNP in Heart Failure Patients Receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Multivariable prediction models for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Assessment of acute heart failure prognosis: the promising role of prognostic models and biomarkers.Heart failure reviews · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure (HF) is a chronic and common condition with a rising prevalence, especially in the elderly. Morbidity and mortality rates in people with HF are similar to those with common forms of cancer. Clinical guidelines highlight the need for more detailed prognostic information to optimise treatment and care planning for people with HF. Besides proven prognostic biomarkers and numerous newly developed prognostic models for HF clinical outcomes, no risk stratification models have been adequately established. Through a number of linked systematic reviews, we aim to assess the quality of the existing models with biomarkers in HF and summarise the evidence they present.
methodsWe will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and the prognostic studies database maintained by the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group combining sensitive published search filters, with no language restriction, from 1990 onwards. Independent pairs of reviewers will screen and extract data. Eligible studies will be those developing, validating, or updating any prognostic model with biomarkers for clinical outcomes in adults with any type of HF. Data will be extracted using a piloted form that combines published good practice guidelines for critical appraisal, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment of prediction modelling studies. Missing information on predictive performance measures will be sought by contacting authors or estimated from available information when possible. If sufficient high quality and homogeneous data are available, we will meta-analyse the predictive performance of identified models. Sources of between-study heterogeneity will be explored through meta-regression using pre-defined study-level covariates. Results will be reported narratively if study quality is deemed to be low or if the between-study heterogeneity is high. Sensitivity analyses for risk of bias impact will be performed. DISCUSSION: This project aims to appraise and summarise the methodological conduct and predictive performance of existing clinically homogeneous HF prognostic models in separate systematic reviews.Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42019086990.
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.