SynthesisESC heart failure2023
Validation of heart failure algorithm for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic and prognostic value of the HFA-PEFF score for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Validation of heart failure algorithm for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a meta-analysis.ESC heart failure · 2023Pooled it
- Prognostic Utility of the HFpEF-ABA Score for HFpEF Patients: Insights From the TOPCAT Trial.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Strengths and limitations of HFpEF probability scores in the era of precision medicine.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Heart Failure in the Modern Era: A Narrative Overview of Recent Research from 2022-2025.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Article
- The Critical Role of Comorbidities in Managing Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF).ESC heart failure · 2025Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the meta-analysis was to generate a more comprehensive understanding of the HFA-PEFF score in the diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and to pose clues in the field of scientific and clinical practice. Electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase were systematically searched. Studies investigating the use of the HFA-PEFF score to diagnose HFpEF were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative Likelihood Ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic, and superiority index were calculated. Five studies with 1521 participants were included in this meta-analysis. In the pooled analysis of the 'Rule-out' approach, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.98 (0.94, 1.00), 0.33 (0.08, 0.73), 1.5 (0.8, 2.5), 0.05 (0.02, 0.17), and 28 (6, 127). In the pooled analysis of the 'Rule-in' approach, the pooled sensitivity and specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), 0.87 (0.64, 0.96), 5.5 (1.8, 16.9), 0.35 (0.30, 0.41), and 16 (5, 50). This meta-analysis indicates that the HFA-PEFF algorithm showed acceptable specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis and exclusion of HFpEF. More relevant studies on the diagnostic validity of the HFA-PEFF score are needed in the future.
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.