ReviewCureus2023
Peer Support for Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Exploring self-care experiences, challenges and preferences among patients with heart failure in Jordan: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Enhancing care in alcohol-associated liver disease through peer support for alcohol use disorder.Hepatology communications · 2026Review
- The effect of peer support on fear of disease progression in patients with glioma: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Chronic disease self-management in heart failure: A narrative review of performance gaps and emerging solutions.Medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peer support, which is given by people with similar life experiences and experiential knowledge, has been shown to be effective for patients with diabetes and mental illness. However, the impact of such peer support on patients coping with heart failure remains indeterminate. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to scrutinize the potential benefits of peer support for patients with heart failure. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of peer support for patients with heart failure in contrast to those without peer support. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov until October 2022. We pooled the data on mortality, readmission rate, and quality of life (QoL) as primary outcomes. The certainty of evidence was evaluated by the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included three studies with 390 patients with heart failure. Peer support may have resulted in a slight increase in mortality (risk ratio (RR)=1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.61-2.21; low certainty of the evidence) and in a reduction in the readmission rate (RR=0.93, 95% CI=0.74-1.17; low certainty of the evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of peer support on QoL (standardized mean difference 2.03 higher in the intervention group, 95% CI=1.79 lower to 5.84 higher; very low certainty of the evidence). Despite that the certainty is low or very low, the extant data available evidence suggests that peer support may not yield substantial improvements in critical outcomes for patients with heart failure. Consequently, endorsing peer support for patients with heart failure currently seems unjustifiable.
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.