Observational studyESC heart failure2023
Risk prediction of mortality for patients with heart failure in England: observational study in primary care.
Observational study in ESC heart failure, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Future of Cardiac Care: A Review on the Role for Non-Invasive, Home-Based Monitoring and Rehabilitation after Hospitalisation for Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.Current heart failure reports · 2026Review
- Article
- Risk prediction of mortality for patients with heart failure in England: observational study in primary care.ESC heart failure · 2023Observational
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
Abstract
aimsMany risk prediction models have been proposed for heart failure (HF), but few studies have used only information available to general practitioners (GPs) in primary care electronic health records (EHRs). We describe the predictors and performance of models built from GP-based EHRs in two cohorts of patients 10 years apart. METHODS AND
resultsLinked primary and secondary care data for incident HF cases in England were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink for 2001-02 and 2011-12. Time-to-event models for all-cause mortality were developed using a long list of potential baseline predictors. Discrimination and calibration were calculated. A total of 5966 patients in 156 general practices were diagnosed in 2001-02, and 12 827 patients in 331 practices were diagnosed in 2011-12. The 5-year survival rate was 40.0% in 2001-02 and 40.2% in 2011-12, though the latter population were older, frailer, and more comorbid; for 2001-02, the 10-year survival was 20.8% and 15-year survival 11.1%. Consistent predictors included age, male sex, systolic blood pressure, body mass index, GP domiciliary visits before diagnosis, and some comorbidities. Model performance for both time windows was modest (c = 0.70), but calibration was generally excellent in both time periods.
conclusionsInformation routinely available to UK GPs at the time of diagnosis of HF gives only modest predictive accuracy of all-cause mortality, making it hard to decide on the type, place, and urgency of follow-up. More consistent recording of data relevant to HF (such as echocardiography and natriuretic peptide results) in GP EHRs is needed to support accurate prediction of healthcare needs in individuals with HF.
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.