ReviewEuropean journal of preventive cardiology2020
Comparison among different multiparametric scores for risk stratification in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction.
Review in European journal of preventive cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning Applications for Risk Stratification in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A New Era in Cardiology.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Risk Stratification Tools in Acute Heart Failure and Their Roles in Personalized Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Identifying and overcoming barriers to referral in advanced heart failure. A scientific statement of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.European journal of heart failure · 2025Review
- Worsening versus advanced heart failure: Management and challenges.ESC heart failure · 2025Review
- VJournal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Who is the Candidate? The Heart Transplant Evaluation Process.Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal · 2025Review
- Discriminative Utility of Apelin-to-NT-Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide Ratio for Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction among Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Article
- Characteristics and outcomes of heart failure with recovered left ventricular ejection fraction.ESC heart failure · 2021Article
- Novel biomarker-driven prognostic models to predict morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure: the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.European heart journal · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure is a serious condition with high prevalence (about 2% in the adult population in developed countries, and more than 8% in patients older than 75 years). About 3-5% of hospital admissions are linked with heart failure incidents. The guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure have identified individual markers in patients with heart failure, including demographic data, aetiology, comorbidities, clinical, radiological, haemodynamic, echocardiographic and biochemical parameters. Several scoring systems have been proposed to identify adverse events, such as destabilizations, re-hospitalizations and mortality. This article reviews scoring systems for heart failure prognostication, with particular mention of those models with exercise tolerance objective definition. Although most of the models include readily available clinical information, quite a few of them comprise circulating levels of natriuretic peptides and a more objective evaluation of exercise tolerance. A literature review was also conducted to (a) identify heart failure risk-prediction models, (b) assess statistical approach, and (c) identify common variables.
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.