ArticleESC heart failure2025
Insights into clinical practice: A national survey on fluid intake management in heart failure.
Article in ESC heart failure, 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.
- Insights into clinical practice: A national survey on fluid intake management in heart failure.ESC heart failure · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsDue to insufficient evidence and a lack of cohesive guidelines, the management and use of fluid restriction in patients with heart failure (HF) may vary among healthcare professionals. However, the extent of this variation is unknown. The aim of this study was to describe physicians' and registered nurses' (RN) clinical practice regarding fluid intake and fluid restriction in adult patients with HF. METHODS AND
resultsPhysicians and RNs treating patients with HF at 75 hospitals across all healthcare regions in Sweden were invited to answer a web-based survey regarding management on fluid intake and fluid restriction. Data were analysed with descriptive statistics and chi-square test. A total of 646 physicians and RNs across 45 hospitals in Sweden completed the survey. Significant differences in recommendations and management were found in relation to professional role, care setting and work experience. Overall, 93.8% recommend fluid restriction for all or some patients with HF. RNs recommend fluid restriction for all patients with HF to a significantly higher extent compared with physicians (34.5% vs. 14.9%; P < 0.001). Additionally, 49.2% believe that fluid restriction is an effective treatment strategy to prevent congestion, and 29.3% recommend fluid restriction routinely. One-third lacked knowledge of existing local guidelines regarding fluid restriction.
conclusionsThis study shows that there are differences in clinical practice regarding healthcare professionals' recommendations on fluid intake and fluid restriction. These differences may result in patients with HF receiving varied and inconsistent care. Recommendations were primarily based on each healthcare professional's individual opinion rather than on evidence and guidelines.
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.