Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34671870›Full record

SynthesisHeart failure reviews2022

A systematic review exploring the significance of measuring epicardial fat thickness in correlation to B-type natriuretic peptide levels as prognostic and diagnostic markers in patients with or at risk of heart failure.

Thembeka A Nyawo, Phiwayinkosi V Dludla, Sithandiwe E Mazibuko-Mbeje, Sinenhlanhla X H Mthembu, Tawanda M Nyambuya, Bongani B Nkambule, Hanél Sadie-Van Gijsen, Hans Strijdom, Carmen Pheiffer

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Thembeka A NyawoBiomedical Research and Innovation Platform, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, 7505, South Africa.
Phiwayinkosi V DludlaBiomedical Research and Innovation Platform, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, 7505, South Africa.
Sithandiwe E Mazibuko-MbejeDepartment of Biochemistry, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North West University, Mafikeng Campus, Mmabatho, 2735, South Africa.
Sinenhlanhla X H MthembuBiomedical Research and Innovation Platform, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, 7505, South Africa.
Tawanda M NyambuyaDepartment of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, Namibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek, 9000, Namibia.
Bongani B NkambuleSchool of Laboratory Medicine and Medical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4000, South Africa.
Hanél Sadie-Van GijsenCentre for Cardiometabolic Research in Africa (CARMA), Division of Medical Physiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, 7505, South Africa.
Hans StrijdomCentre for Cardiometabolic Research in Africa (CARMA), Division of Medical Physiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, 7505, South Africa.
Carmen PheifferBiomedical Research and Innovation Platform, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, 7505, South Africa. carmen.pheiffer@mrc.ac.za.ORCID 0000-0002-0707-1552
South African Medical Research Council · ZAStellenbosch University · ZANamibia University of Science and Technology · NANorth-West University · ZAUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emerging evidence suggests that epicardial fat thickness (EFT) may be a critical feature to understand cardiac health and determine the risk of heart failure. The current review critically assesses and discusses evidence on the efficiency of measuring EFT, in comparison to the well-known markers B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and its N-terminal fragment pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), as a prognostic and diagnostic approach in individuals with or at risk of heart failure. A systematic approach was undertaken to search major databases, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and the Cochrane library to identify studies that quantified EFT and serum BNP/NT-proBNP levels in individuals with or at risk of heart failure. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and a total of 1983 participants were included in this systematic review. Evidence shows a clear association between increased EFT and elevated BNP/NT-proBNP levels in individuals with metabolic disease and suggests that both methods can be used for heart failure diagnosis and prognosis. However, due to the broad spectrum of challenges linked with measuring EFT, BNP/Pro-BNP is the predominant method used for heart failure diagnosis and prognosis in clinical practice. Nonetheless, measuring EFT provides a powerful and reproducible diagnostic tool for risk stratification and heart failure diagnosis and prognosis. Importantly, measuring EFT proves valuable to validate BNP/NT-proBNP levels to predict heart failure, especially due to its non-invasive nature.

Indexed as

Heart FailureNatriuretic Peptide, BrainBiomarkersHumansPeptide FragmentsPrognosisBiomarkersNatriuretic Peptide, BrainPeptide FragmentsB-type natriuretic peptideCardiac markersCardiovascular diseaseEpicardial adipose tissueHeart failureMetabolic syndrome

Identifiers

PMID34671870
PMCPMC8898254
OpenAlexW3206030569

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.