ArticleAnnals of pediatric cardiology
The paucity of high-level evidence for therapy in pediatric cardiology.
Article in Annals of pediatric cardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of artificial intelligence in congenital heart disease.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence in pediatric cardiology: Where do we stand in 2024?Annals of pediatric cardiologyArticle
- Pediatric cardiac interventions: Innovations from India.Annals of pediatric cardiologyReview
- Pediatric cardiology: In search for evidence.Annals of pediatric cardiologyArticle
- Eptifibatide bolus dose postductal stenting intervention: A single-center experience.Annals of pediatric cardiologyArticle
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
Introduction: Clinical practice should be based on the highest quality of evidence available. Therefore, we aimed to classify publications in the field of pediatric cardiology in the year 2021 based on the level of scientific evidence. Materials and Methods: A PubMed search was performed to identify pediatric cardiology articles published in the calendar year 2021. The abstract or manuscript of each study was reviewed. Each study was categorized as high, medium, or low level of evidence based on the study design. Disease investigated, treatment studied, and country of publication were recorded. Randomized control trials (RCTs) in similar fields of neonatology and adult cardiology were identified for comparison. Descriptive statistics were performed on the level of evidence, type of disease, country of publication, and therapeutic intervention. Results: In 2021, 731 studies were identified. A decrease in prevalence for the level of evidence as a function of low, medium, and high was found (50.1%, 44.2%, and 5.8%, respectively). A low level of evidence studies was the majority for all types of cardiac disease identified, including acquired heart disease, arrhythmias, congenital heart disease, and heart failure, and for treatment modalities, including circulatory support, defibrillator, percutaneous intervention, medicine, and surgery. In a subgroup analysis, most high-level evidence studies were from the USA (31%), followed by China (26.2%) and India (14.3%). Comparing RCTs, 21 RCTs were identified in pediatric cardiology compared to 178 in neonatology and 413 in adult ischemic heart disease. Conclusions: There is a great need for the conduct of studies that offer a high level of evidence in the discipline of pediatric cardiology.
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.