ReviewHerz2021
Echocardiographic assessment in cardiogenic shock.
Review in Herz, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictors of right ventricular dysfunction and its clinical value after reperfusion of acute right coronary artery occlusion: a single-center retrospective analysis.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Transcatheter interventions for left-sided valvular heart disease complicated by cardiogenic shock: a consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) in collaboration with the Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) and the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Echocardiography is the most helpful diagnostic modality in cardiogenic shock, the management of which still remains challenging despite advances in therapeutic options. The presence of cardiogenic shock portends high mortality rates. Therefore, rapid recognition, identification of the underlying cause, and evaluation of the severity of hemodynamic dysfunction are vital for correct management. Whether the cause of shock is unknown, suspected, or established, echocardiography is utilized in its diagnosis and management as well as to monitor progress. It is recommended as the modality of first choice. No other investigative bedside tool can offer comparable diagnostic capability, allowing for exact targeting of the underlying cardiac and hemodynamic problems. Echocardiography can promptly provide an impression of the etiology of shock and the potential line of treatment. Normal left ventricular and right ventricular systolic function, normal cardiac chamber dimensions, absence of any significant valvular pathology, and absence of any pericardial effusion virtually rule out a cardiac cause of shock. This review discusses the role of echocardiography as a decision-making tool in the evaluation and management of cardiogenic shock.
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.