ArticleProgress in cardiovascular diseases
Patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Article in Progress in cardiovascular diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experiences, Values and Goals of People Living with Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: Exploratory Patient Interviews.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Trusting the True Experts Through Patient-Reported Health Status in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to characterize patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in registered clinical studies of participants with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM).
backgroundTherapy for HCM is primarily targeted toward alleviation of symptoms and improvement in function and quality of life. Yet, the contemporary landscape of PROs in HCM clinical research has not been investigated.
methodsClinicalTrials.gov was queried to identify clinical studies of HCM that reported PROs as outcome measures. All studies of HCM as the disease condition were included, and PROs were identified using specific search terms in the Outcome Measures field. Study characteristics were collected and compared between those that did versus did not report PROs.
resultsFrom November 1987 to February 2022, 181 studies including participants with HCM were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Of these, 35 (19%) included PROs as outcome measures. Studies reporting PROs were more likely to be designated as interventional (85.7% vs. 46.6%; p < 0.001) and to involve randomization (65.7% vs. 24.7%; p = 0.003) compared with those that did not report PROs. Prior to 2007, no clinical studies that reported PROs were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov; however, PRO reporting has increased over the last 15 years. Of the 66 PRO tools or domains included as outcome measures, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire was the most often used.
conclusionsOnly approximately one in five registered clinical studies of participants with HCM report PROs. As medical, percutaneous, and surgical therapies for HCM continue to advance, HCM-specific PRO tools that assess the impacts of these new treatments on meaningful patient-related endpoints are urgently needed.
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.