ArticleAmerican journal of cardiovascular disease2021
Evaluation of quality of life in patients with congenital heart disease: an observational case control study.
Article in American journal of cardiovascular disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Right ventricular function, exercise capacity and quality of life in adults with congenital heart disease and the effect of a home-based exercise program.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2026Article
- Quality of Life in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease: Insights from a Tertiary Centre.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Accelerated Cardiac Aging in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Quality of life in adult patients with congenital heart disease: Results of a double-center study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality of life (QoL) has become an important issue in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). Accordingly, the focus has shifted from mere survival to a better QoL. The objective of this study is to assess QoL, by examining the World Health Organization QoL-bref (WHOQoL-BREF) questionnaire, in patients with CHD and a control population of a same geographic area matched for age, sex, cardiovascular risk factors and educational level. 154 patients with CHD recruited from a single hospital outpatient clinic and 250 healthy controls were studied between October 2018 and April 2019. Median age in patients with CHD was 27 (20-34) years and 62% were male. 32, 90 and 32 patients with CHD showed mild, moderate, and complex defects, respectively. 131 (53%) controls referred having felt or experienced negative feelings such as bad mood, despair, stress, or depression compared to 53 (34%) patients in the CHD group (P<0.001). Despite needing more medical treatment (P<0.001), patients with CHD enjoyed more their lives (P<0.001), felt their lives made more sense (P<0.001), were happier with themselves (P=0.006) and with their personal relationships (P=0.020), had a greater support from friends (P=0.031) and felt safer in their daily lives (P=0.004) than patients in the control group. Similarly, patient with CHD felt their environment was healthier, had more opportunities for leisure and were happier with their access to healthcare system (P<0.005) than controls. On the contrary, except the need for more medical treatment in patients with great CHD defects (P=0.019), no significant differences were seen in the WHOQoL-BREF survey according to the anatomical complexity. In conclusion, overall patients with CHD scored better in the WHOQoL-BREF questionnaire, especially in the psychological and environment domains, than patients in the control group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33815922PMC8012282W3148698011What 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.