ArticleClinical cardiology2020
European heart health survey 2019.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Sex Differences Among Patients With Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Single-Center Observational Study.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2026Observational
- Chest pain in a multi-ethnic population: A community-based study on sex differences in chest pain prevalence and care contacts.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of physical activity and cognitive performance in both institutionalized and non-institutionalized older adults, controlling sociodemographic variables.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Sex-related disparities in aortic stenosis from disease awareness to treatment: a state-of-the-art review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Review
- Creating a better journey of care for patients with heart valve disease.European heart journal open · 2021Article
- European heart health survey 2019.Clinical cardiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2021
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRising life expectancy in the western population is increasing the prevalence of heart valve diseases (HVD). HYPOTHESIS: The level of awareness and initial screening for HVD should be sufficient. The potential impact of HVD on the daily activities of the elderly population in Europe might affect our society. METHODS AND
resultsA survey was conducted, including a total of 12 832 people aged ≥ 60 years in 11 European countries. Of all the people surveyed, 5.6% could correctly describe aortic valve stenosis. Most participants (75.0%) claimed they regularly do activities like sports or social activities, 29.2% provide care for a family member, friend or acquaintance. The majority (69.2%) would be prevented from doing these activities by symptoms such as chest pain, fatigue or shortness of breath. Having chest pain (76.5%) and shortness of breath (57.8%) were reasons for most people to arrange an appointment with their GP, whereas only 26.2% would visit a GP for fatigue. 67.6% of respondents claimed to be checked with a stethoscope by their GP occasionally, never, or only when they ask. The preferred treatment option for HVD is a keyhole procedure (45.8%), whereas open heart surgery would only be preferred by 7.0%.
conclusionKnowledge about HVD is still low. Neither appointments with a GP driven by symptoms nor regular use of a stethoscope are a reliable guarantee for early diagnosis. With the over 60s in Europe playing an active role in social life, awareness campaigns and regular heart health checks may guarantee early diagnosis and treatment of HVD.
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.