SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2021
Funding of Studies Supporting IA Guideline Recommendations in Cardiovascular Medicine-A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Funding of Studies Supporting IA Guideline Recommendations in Cardiovascular Medicine-A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2021Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Each guideline recommendation from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology includes an indication of the level of supporting evidence and the associated strength of recommendation with "IA" recommendations representing those with the highest quality supporting evidence and the least amount of uncertainty for benefit. In this analysis, study type and funding sources were systematically tabulated across these IA guideline recommendations over the past 5 years. Nearly half of studies supporting IA guideline recommendations were randomized controlled trials (45%). Overall, about one third of studies supporting IA recommendations were publicly funded (34.9%) with slightly more funded through industry sources (43.5%). Funding sources varied based on the type of intervention being studied with randomized controlled trials of device, diagnostic, and pharmacological interventions reflecting predominantly industry-funded studies. Over time, studies supporting IA cardiology guideline are funded by industry about twice as often as public sources. Thus, data of adequate quality to support cardiovascular guideline recommendations come from a variety of sources.
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.