ArticleSystematic reviews2023
Efficacy of disease management program used among patients with chronic heart failure: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Health-Related Quality of Life and Associated Factors in Patients with Heart Failure Across Three Ejection Fraction Categories: A Two-Center Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
backgroundA large number of studies have provided a variety of heart failure management program (HF-MP) intervention modes. It is generally believed that HF-MP is effective, but the question of which type of program works best, what level of support is needed for an intervention to be effective, and whether different subgroups of patients are best served by different types of programs is still confusing.
methodsThis study will search for published and unpublished randomized clinical trials in English examining HF-MP interventions in comparison with usual care. MEDLINE, Medlin In-Process and Non-Indexed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO will be the databases. We will calibrate our eligibility criteria among the team. Each literature will be screened by at least two reviewers. Conflicts will be resolved through team discussion. A similar process will be used for data abstraction and quality appraisal. The results will be synthesized descriptively, and a network meta-analysis will be conducted if the studies are deemed methodologically, clinically, and statistically acceptable (e.g., I DISCUSSION: This study will reduce the clinical heterogeneity and statistical heterogeneity of review and meta-analysis through a more scientific classification method to determine the most effective HF-MP in different subgroups of heart failure patients with different human resource investments and different intervention methods, providing high-quality evidence and guidance for clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021258521.
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.