ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Risk scores in cardiac resynchronization therapy-A review of the literature.
Review 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.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Clinical phenotypes among patients that underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy using unsupervised learning integrating gated SPECT.Nuclear medicine communications · 2025Article
- Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for selected heart failure (HF) patients improves symptoms and reduces morbidity and mortality; however, the prognosis of HF is still poor. There is an emerging need for tools that might help in optimal patient selection and provide prognostic information for patients and their families. Several risk scores have been created in recent years; although, no literature review is available that would list the possible scores for the clinicians. We identified forty-eight risk scores in CRT and provided the calculation methods and formulas in a ready-to-use format. The reviewed score systems can predict the prognosis of CRT patients; some of them have even provided an online calculation tool. Significant heterogeneity is present between the various risk scores in terms of the variables incorporated and some variables are not yet used in daily clinical practice. The lack of cross-validation of the risk scores limits their routine use and objective selection. As the number of prognostic markers of CRT is overwhelming, further studies might be required to analyze and cross-validate the data.
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.