ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Early Recognition and Risk Stratification in Cardiogenic Shock: Well Begun Is Half Done.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of PoCUS in the Diagnosis and Early Monitoring of Cardiogenic Shock in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Stress Hyperglycemia Ratio Predicts 28-Day Mortality in Patients with AMI Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from a Large-Scale Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Risk Stratification in Predicting Cardiogenic Shock 30-Day Mortality admitted to ICU: beyond the Prognostic Performance of SHARC and SCAI Classifications.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Biventricular dysfunction predicts mortality in ST elevation myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Diuretic Treatment in Heart Failure: A Practical Guide for Clinicians.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock is a complex syndrome manifesting with distinct phenotypes depending on the severity of the primary cardiac insult and the underlying status. As long as therapeutic interventions fail to divert its unopposed rapid evolution, poor outcomes will continue challenging health care systems. Thus, early recognition in the emergency setting is a priority, in order to avoid delays in appropriate management and to ensure immediate initial stabilization. Since advanced therapeutic strategies and specialized shock centers may provide beneficial support, it seems that directing patients towards the recently described shock network may improve survival rates. A multidisciplinary approach strategy commands the interconnections between the strategic role of the ED in affiliation with cardiac shock centers. This review outlines critical features of early recognition and initial therapeutic management, as well as the utility of diagnostic tools and risk stratification models regarding the facilitation of patient trajectories through the shock network. Further, it proposes the implementation of precise criteria for shock team activation and the establishment of definite exclusion criteria for streaming the right patient to the right place at the right time.
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.