ArticleCJC open2025
Guideline-Referral Criteria and Risk Profiles of Outpatients Referred to a Specialised Heart Failure Clinic.
Article in CJC open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Heart Failure Readmission Prevention Strategies-A Comparative Review of Medications, Devices, and Other Interventions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Specialised heart failure (HF) care improves outcomes for patients with HF. To understand the risk profiles of HF outpatients referred to a specialised clinic, we evaluated referral reasons, predicted risk, and the presence of guideline-recommended referral criteria at a large specialised HF clinic. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study including outpatients with HF (≥ 18 years old) referred from November 2021 to November 2022. We calculated 1-year predicted mortality with the use of the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) and the I-NEED-HELP referral criteria. We compared median SHFM-predicted mortality with referral reasons and the I-NEED-HELP criteria by means of Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests. Results: Among 245 consecutive HF outpatients included, median SHFM-predicted 1-year mortality was 4% (interquartile range [IQR] 2%-8%). Reasons for referral included evaluation for advanced therapies (29%), medication optimisation (23%), diagnostic evaluation (19%), post-hospitalisation/emergency department visit (14%), ongoing HF management (12%), patient request (2%), and transition to adult care (1%). The median SHFM-predicted 1-year mortality did not differ significantly by referral reason ( Conclusions: Patients referred to a specialised HF clinic have a wide risk range. The difference in predicted mortality among patients meeting any vs no I-NEED-HELP criteria appears clinically insignificant. Incorporating model-predicted risk at the time of referral can guide triage and patient prioritisation.
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.