Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38021950›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Peer Support for Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Shuri Nakao, Tomohiko Kamo, Hidehiro Someko, Masatsugu Okamura, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Hirofumi Ogihara, Shinya Sato, Sokichi Maniwa

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Shuri NakaoDivision of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shimane University Hospital, Izumo, JPN.
Tomohiko KamoDepartment of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation, Gunma Paz University, Takasaki, JPN.
Hidehiro SomekoDepartment of Systematic Reviewers, Scientific Research Works Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, JPN.
Masatsugu OkamuraDepartment of Systematic Reviewers, Scientific Research Works Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, JPN.
Yasushi TsujimotoDepartment of Systematic Reviewers, Scientific Research Works Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, JPN.
Hirofumi OgiharaDepartment of Systematic Reviewers, Scientific Research Works Peer Support Group (SRWS-PSG), Osaka, JPN.
Shinya SatoDivision of Rehabilitation Medicine, Shimane University Hospital, Izumo, JPN.
Sokichi ManiwaDepartment of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Shimane University Hospital, Izumo, JPN.
Kleijnen Systematic Reviews (United Kingdom) · GBShimane University Hospital · JPGumma Paz College · JPKyoto University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

heart failuremortalitypeer supportsocial supportsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38021950
PMCPMC10630709
OpenAlexW4387447616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.