ArticleBMJ open2025
Adherence to guidelines for natriuretic peptide testing in heart failure: a nationwide survey of healthcare professionals in Vietnam.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to determine doctors' level of adherence to the natriuretic peptide testing guideline and to identify the factors influencing their adherence.
designCross-sectional study.
settingWeb-based survey.
participantsFull-time doctors involved in heart failure (HF) treatment in Vietnam. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Doctors using natriuretic peptide testing for diagnosis, differential diagnosis, treatment assessment and prognosis of patients with HF were classified as adhering to the guidelines. We assessed the practice of natriuretic peptide testing and stratified the doctors based on their professional qualifications. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the Odds Ratio (ORs) and 95% CIs for associations between guideline adherence and selected covariates.
resultsOver half of the participants adhered to the natriuretic peptide testing guidelines (57.4%). Cardiologists adhered more closely to the guidelines than other professionals; they had approximately four times higher odds of adherence than other doctors (univariate model, OR: 3.88, 95% CI: 2.56 to 5.89, p<0.001; multivariate model, OR: 4.24, 95% CI: 2.64 to 6.82, p<0.001). Cardiologists also had significantly higher rates of using natriuretic peptide testing for diagnosis (93.8% vs 84.1%, p<0.002), differential diagnosis (71.4% vs 53.5%, p<0.001), treatment assessment (87% vs 64.2%, p<0.001) and prognosis (68.2% vs 50.4%, p<0.001) than other professionals. More years of professional experience correlated with higher guideline adherence (<2 years was used as a reference point; >5 to <10 years, OR: 2.59, 95% CI: 1.45 to 4.60, p<0.001; ≥10 years, OR: 2.30, 95% CI: 1.30 to 4.09, p<0.004).
conclusionThe level of adherence to natriuretic peptide testing guidelines among doctors treating patients with HF varies across Vietnam. Targeted interventions are needed to enhance understanding and proficiency, especially among non-cardiologists and those with limited experience. A dedicated fact sheet focusing on natriuretic peptide testing in HF management, separate from the existing guidelines, could bridge this gap.
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.