ReviewCureus2022
A Systematic Review of Echocardiographic Parameters for the Screening of Pulmonary Hypertension: What Are the Odds?
Review in Cureus, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Novel Echocardiographic Measurements of Right Ventricular-Pulmonary Artery Coupling in Predicting the Prognosis of Precapillary Pulmonary Hypertension.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Tricuspid Regurgitation Velocity and Mean Pressure Gradient for the Prediction of Pulmonary Hypertension According to the New Hemodynamic Definition.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is an insidious disease that often presents in late stages due to nonspecific signs and symptoms. Right heart catheterization (RHC) is the gold standard diagnostic test, and echocardiogram (ECHO) is the best screening tool. However, the strength of evidence and diagnostic utility of various echocardiographic parameters to screen for is not well elucidated. This systematic review (SR) is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Literature searches was performed for the period of January 1, 2016, to June 1, 2021, on seven databases. We included full-text studies with adult patients that used RHC for comparison and provided sensitivity and specificity results. Likelihood ratios (LRs) and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were calculated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for the Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. We identified 102 studies, but only 14 satisfied our inclusion criteria. The most significant parameters identified for PH screening based on LRs are, in descending order, tricuspid regurgitation gradient peak >36mmHg, systolic pulmonary artery pressure >41mmHg, and tricuspid regurgitation velocity >2.9 m/s. There is strong correlation between LR and DOR for these parameters. This SR indicates the superiority of some ECHO parameters over others to aid in the screening and severity assessment of PH. Variables with low LR (-) ratios may help to prevent unnecessary invasive assessment for PH. Clinicians should utilize a multi-parameter approach when interpreting echocardiograms for PH 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.