ReviewClinical cardiology2022
Clinical implications of the universal definition for the prevention and treatment of heart failure.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Finding and Managing Heart Failure Earlier: Why Enhancing Primary Care Teams to Apply More Definitive Surveillance is the Solution.Cardiac failure review · 2026Review
- Periodontal Disease and Risk of Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Medical embryology and regenerative medicine: research and applications in clinical practice.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Microbiome-based risk prediction in incident heart failure: a community challenge.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Advances in the management of heart failure.Clinical cardiology · 2022Article
- Clinical implications of the universal definition for the prevention and treatment of heart failure.Clinical cardiology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diagnosis of heart failure (HF) primarily relies on signs and symptoms that are neither sensitive nor specific. This impedes timely diagnosis and delays effective therapies or interventions, despite the availability of several evidence-based treatments for HF. Through monumental collaborative efforts from representatives of HF societies worldwide, the universal definition of HF was published in 2021, to provide the necessary standardized framework required for clinical management, clinical trials, and research. This review elaborates the key concepts of the new universal definition of HF, highlighting the key merits and potential avenues, which can be nuanced further in future iterations. We also discuss the key implications of the universal definition document from the perspectives of various stakeholders within the healthcare framework, including patients, care providers, system/payers and policymakers.
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.