ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2025
Fluid status assessment in heart failure patients: pilot validation of the Maastricht Decompensation Questionnaire.
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing heart failure detection and patient engagement with the Maastricht Decompensation Questionnaire.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
- Chances and challenges of questionnaires in heart failure care.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
- Three studies, three steps forward in cardiovascular care.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundeHealth products have the potential to enhance heart failure (HF) care by identifying at-risk patients. However, existing risk models perform modestly and require extensive data, limiting their practical application in clinical settings. This study aims to address this gap by validating a more suitable risk model for eHealth integration.
methodsWe developed the Maastricht Decompensation Questionnaire (MDQ) based on expert opinion to assess HF patients' fluid status using common signs and symptoms. Subsequently, the MDQ was administered to a cohort of HF outpatients at Maastricht University Medical Centre. Patients with ≥ 10 MDQ points were categorised as 'decompensated', patients with < 10 MDQ points as 'not decompensated'. HF nurses, blinded to MDQ scores, served as the gold standard for fluid status assessment. Patients were classified as 'correctly' if MDQ and nurse assessments aligned; otherwise, they were classified as 'incorrectly'.
resultsA total of 103 elderly HF patients were included. The MDQ classified 50 patients as 'decompensated', with 17 of them being correctly classified (34%). Additionally, 53 patients were categorised as 'not decompensated', with 48 of them being correctly classified (90%). The calculated area under the curve was 0.69 (95% confidence interval: 0.57-0.81; p < 0.05). Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient for the MDQ was 0.85.
conclusionsThe MDQ helps identify decompensated HF patients through clinical signs and symptoms. Further trials with larger samples are needed to confirm its validity, reliability and applicability. Tailoring the MDQ to individual patient profiles may improve its accuracy.
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.