GuidelineEuropean heart journal2025
2024 Revision of the level of evidence grading system for ESC clinical practice guideline recommendations II: diagnostic tests and prediction models.
Guideline in European heart journal, 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.
- Article
- Development and Validation of a Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography-Based Radiomics-Integrated Model for Noninvasive Detection of Left Atrial Appendage Thrombus in Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Baseline Echocardiographic Predictors of Outcomes in Low-to-intermediate Risk Acute Pulmonary Embolism and Integration with Electrocardiographic Findings: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of cardiovascular echographyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The level of evidence (LOE) grading system for European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) classifies the quality of the evidence supporting a recommendation. However, the current taxonomy does not fully consider the optimal study design necessary to establish evidence for different types of recommendations in ESC guidelines. Therefore, two separate task forces of clinical and methodological experts were appointed by the CPG Committee, with the first tasked with updating the LOE grading system for therapy and prevention and the second responsible for developing a LOE grading system for diagnosis and prediction. This report from the second of these Task Forces develops a new system for diagnostic tests and prediction models which maintains the three-level grading structure to classify the quality of the evidence but introduces new definitions specific for diagnosis and prediction. For diagnostic tests, LOE A represents conclusive evidence of adequate diagnostic ability from at least two high-quality studies. Level of evidence B represents suggestive evidence from one high-quality or at least two moderate-quality studies. Level of evidence C represents preliminary evidence not classified as A or B, including evidence from less than two moderate-quality studies, or from expert consensus. For prediction models, LOE A represents conclusive evidence of adequate predictive ability from at least one high-quality derivation and two or more external validation studies of at least moderate quality. Level of evidence B represents suggestive evidence in one or more derivation studies and one or more external validation studies of at least moderate quality. Level of evidence C represents preliminary evidence not classified as A or B, including evidence from a derivation study of at least moderate quality, but with low quality or no external validation, or a derivation study of low quality.
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.