ArticleESC heart failure2023
Webtool to enhance the accuracy of diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF: a prospective cross-over study.
Article 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.
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.
- Automated assessment of echocardiograms to aid diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.European heart journal. Digital health · 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
- A simplified approach for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction by assessing the left atrium and natriuretic peptides.European journal of heart failure · 2025Article
- Sex-specific performance of clinical diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF across two independent cohorts.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
- Discordance between left atrial pressure and risk scores in assessment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing catheter ablation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Webtool to enhance the accuracy of diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF: a prospective cross-over study.ESC heart failure · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsDiagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can be challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of a webtool to enhance the scoring accuracy when applying the complex HFA-PEFF and H METHODS AND
resultsWe developed an online tool, the HFpEF calculator, that enables the automatic calculation of current HFpEF algorithms. We assessed the accuracy of manual vs. automatic scoring, defined as the percentage of correct scores, in a cohort of cardiologists with varying clinical experience. Cardiologists scored eight online clinical cases using a triple cross-over design (i.e. two manual-two automatic-two manual-two automatic). Data were analysed in study completers (n = 55, 29% heart failure specialists, 42% general cardiologists, and 29% cardiology residents). Manually calculated scores were correct in 50% (HFA-PEFF: 50% [50-75]; H
conclusionsManual calculation of HFpEF diagnostic algorithms is often inaccurate. Using an automated webtool to calculate HFpEF algorithms significantly improved correct scoring. This new approach may impact the eventual diagnostic decision in up to two-thirds of cases, supporting its routine use in clinical practice.
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.