ArticleEuropean heart journal open2025
Exercise capacity in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of HFrEF and HFpEF disparities in VO
Article in European heart journal open, 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.
- From Continuous-Flow Mechanical Circulatory Support to Heart Transplantation: Hemodynamic, Immunometabolic, and Body Composition Determinants of Rehabilitation Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A non-linear pattern of exercise capacity in heart failure across ejection fraction categories.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Validity and Reliability of the Six-Minute Walking Test Compared to Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test in Individuals with Heart Failure Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) exhibit unique physiological pathways, influencing exercise capacity and functional performance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare peak oxygen consumption (VO Methods and results: A systematic literature search of cohort studies via databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) was conducted from inception until October 2024. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model to calculate the pooled effects was employed. Forty-six studies were included. HFrEF patients demonstrated significantly greater 6MWD compared to HFpEF ( Conclusion: HFpEF patients demonstrated superior VO
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.