SynthesisHeart failure reviews2024
Assessment of patient-reported outcomes measures in heart failure: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sociodemographic, disease-related and lifestyle determinants of health-related quality of life among older patients hospitalized with heart failure.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Health-Related Quality-of-Life Measures in Patients with Heart Failure Cardiogenic Shock Following Axillary Mechanical Circulatory Support.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Quality of life post heart failure diagnosis: population-level trends in the U.S.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies for cardiovascular diseases of Traditional Chinese medicine worldwide: a cross-sectional study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Review
- Modulating energy metabolism to treat non-obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy? Insights from IMPROVE-HCM.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Translation and psychometric validation of the Heart Failure Symptom Tracker (HFaST).BMC cardiovascular disorders · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) is a prevalent global disease, particularly impacting developed countries. With the world's aging population, HF's impact on the quantity and quality of life is expected to grow. This review aims to ascertain the frequency, characteristics, and properties of all patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) studied in HF patients. We searched Ovid/Medline and Web of Science for original articles about PROMs performed in adults with HF. Using pre-established quality criteria for measurement properties, an overall rating was assigned to evaluate and compare different instruments. The quality of evidence was assessed with the COSMIN risk of bias checklist. Of 4283 records identified, we reviewed 296 full-text documents and included 64 papers, involving 30,185 participants. Thirty different PROMs were identified, with 14 specifically designed for HF being the most commonly used. Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLHF) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) were evaluated 16 and 13 times, respectively, demonstrating good psychometric properties. The MacNew Heart Disease Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire, a common heart disease-specific instrument, exhibited negative performances across various psychometric measures. Evidence for generic instruments was scant and unremarkable and they proved to be less responsive in HF populations. MLHF and KCCQ emerged as the most commonly used and well-supported PROMs, with robust overall evidence. They are comprehensive and accurate instruments, particularly suitable for application in clinical practice and research. Future research should explore how computer-adapted instruments can enhance precision, reduce respondent burden, and improve communication between clinicians and patients, thereby promoting more efficient and patient-centered services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38630207What 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.