Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34036472›Full record

ReviewHeart failure reviews2022

Assessment of acute heart failure prognosis: the promising role of prognostic models and biomarkers.

Nikolaos P E Kadoglou, John Parissis, Apostolos Karavidas, Ioannis Kanonidis, Marialena Trivella

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Heart failure reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Nikolaos P E KadoglouMedical School, University of Cyprus, 215/6 Old road Lefkosias-Lemesou, 2029, Aglantzia, Nicosia, Cyprus. nikoskad@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7830-3488
John Parissis2nd Department of Cardiology, Attikon" University Hospital, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Apostolos KaravidasGeneral Hospital of Athens "G. Gennimatas", Athens, Greece.
Ioannis KanonidisSecond Cardiology Department, "Hippokration" Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Marialena TrivellaCentre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki · GRGeneral Hospital of Athens G. Genimatas · GRNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GROffice for National Statistics · GBUniversity of Cyprus · CY

Funding

British Heart Foundation PG/17/49/33099
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous models and biomarkers have been proposed to estimate prognosis and improve decision-making in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). The present literature review provides a critical appraisal of externally validated prognostic models in AHF, combining clinical data and biomarkers. We perform a literature review of clinical studies, using the following terms: "acute heart failure," "acute decompensated heart failure," "prognostic models," "risk scores," "mortality," "death," "hospitalization," "admission," and "biomarkers." We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1990 to 2020 for studies documenting prognostic models in AHF. External validation of each prognostic model to another AHF cohort, containing at least one biomarker, was prerequisites for study selection. Among 358 initially screened studies, 9 of them fulfilled all searching criteria. The majority of prognostic models were simplified, including a narrow number of variables (up to 10), with good performance regarding calibration and discrimination (c-statistics > 0.65). Unfortunately, the derived and validated cohorts showed a wide variety in patients' characteristics (e.g., cause of AHF and therapy). Moreover, the prognostic models used various time-points and a plethora of combinations of variables determining different cut-off values. Although the application of valid prognostic models in AHF population is quite promising, a precise methodological approach should be set for the derivation and validation of prognostic models in AHF with unified characteristics to establish an effective performance in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Heart FailureAcute DiseaseBiomarkersHospitalizationHumansPrognosisBiomarkersAcute heart failureBiomarkersHospitalizationMortalityPrognostic models

Identifiers

PMID34036472
OpenAlexW3165032381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.