ArticleAmerican heart journal2025
Cardiologist perceptions on automated alerts and messages to improve heart failure care.
Article in American heart journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05275920 (Building Electronic Tools To Enhance and Reinforce CArdiovascular REcommendations - Heart Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Building Electronic Tools To Enhance and Reinforce CArdiovascular REcommendations - Heart Failure (BETTER CARE-HF)
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital and algorithmic strategies for guideline-directed medical therapy initiation and up-titration in adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionElectronic health record (EHR)-embedded tools are known to improve prescribing of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure. However, physicians may perceive EHR tools to be unhelpful and be hesitant to implement these in their practice.
methodsThe BETTER CARE-HF trial (NCT05275920) ran from April 28, 2022 to October 26, 2022 at NYU Langone Health outpatient clinics being seen by 180 cardiologists. The trial compared the effectiveness of an Alert during visits, Messages between visits, or usual care with the primary outcome of MRA prescribing. In this study, we sent surveys via electronic mail to cardiologists who either received an Alert or a Message during BETTER CARE-HF (60 cardiologists per survey).
resultsOf the 120 cardiologists who were sent the survey, response rate was 27% in the Alert group and 33% in the Message group. A majority of respondents in both the alert and message groups agreed that EHR tools were easy to use (Alert 79%; Message 69%), served as a reminder to prescribe therapy (Alert 77%; Message 77%;), and that the underlying evidence (Alert 86%; Message 62%) and clinical information (Alert 86%; Message 69%) were trustworthy. Overall, 54% agreed with continued use of the Alert, while 31% agreed with continued use of the Message.
conclusionCardiologists perceived the EHR tools to be easy to use, helpful, and improve the overall management of their patients with heart failure.
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.