SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
A systemic review and meta-analysis comparing the ability of diagnostic of the third heart sound and left ventricular ejection fraction in heart failure.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role of cardiac acoustic biomarkers in monitoring patients with heart failure: A systematic literature review.ESC heart failure · 2025Pooled it
- Not All Leg Swelling Is Volume Overload: Point-of-Care Ultrasound and Sirolimus-Associated Lymphedema After Combined Heart-Kidney Transplant.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Benefits of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis between the third heart sound (S3) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in heart failure (HF). Methods: Relevant studies were searched in PubMed, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Cochrane Trial Register until February 20, 2022. The sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were pooled. The symmetric receiver operator characteristic curve (SROC) and Fagan's nomogram were drawn. The source of heterogeneity was explored by meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Results: A total of 19 studies, involving 5,614 participants, were included. The combined sensitivity of S3 was 0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) (0.15-0.33), specificity was 0.94 [95% CI (0.82-0.98)], area under the SROC curve was 0.49, and the DOR was 4.55; while the sensitivity of LVEF was 0.70 [95% CI (0.53-0.83)], specificity was 0.79 [95% CI (0.75-0.82)], area under the SROC curve was 0.79, and the DOR was 8.64. No publication bias was detected in Deeks' funnel plot. The prospective design, partial verification bias, and blind contributed to the heterogeneity in specificity, while adequate description of study participants contributed to the heterogeneity in sensitivity. In Fagan's nomogram, the post-test probability was 48% when the pre-test probability was set as 20%, while in LVEF, the post-test probability was 45% when the pre-test probability was set as 20%. Conclusion: The use of S3 alone presented lower sensitivity in diagnosing HF compared with LVEF, whereas it was useful in early pathological assessment.
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.