Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33866826›Full record

ReviewCirculation. Heart failure2021

Right Heart Phenotype in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Marco Guazzi, Robert Naeije

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Circulation. Heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. From Mechanisms to Diseases: The Succinate-GPR91 Axis in Cardiometabolic Diseases.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Early Echocardiographic Markers in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marco GuazziDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Milano, Italy (M.G.).
Robert NaeijeErasme Hospital, Free University of Brussels, Belgium (R.N.).
Erasmus Hospital · BEUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The health burden of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is increasingly recognized. Despite improvements in diagnostic algorithms and established knowledge on the clinical trajectory, effective treatment options for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction remain limited, mainly because of the high mechanistic heterogeneity. Diagnostic scores, big data, and phenomapping categorization are proposed as key steps needed for progress. In the meantime, advancements in imaging techniques combined to high-fidelity pressure signaling analysis have uncovered right ventricular dysfunction as a mediator of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction progression and as major independent determinant of poor outcome. This review summarizes the current understanding of the pathophysiology of right ventricular dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction covering the different right heart phenotypes and offering perspectives on new treatments targeting the right ventricle in its function and geometry.

Indexed as

Heart FailureHumansPhenotypeStroke VolumeVentricular Dysfunction, Rightheart failure with preserved ejection fractionphenotypepulmonary hypertensionright heart

Identifiers

PMID33866826
PMCPMC9835680
OpenAlexW3156457909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.