Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40591401›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in cardiology2025

Adding the patient perspective: the necessity of patient reported outcomes in cardiac surgery clinical trials.

Alexander C Gregg, Ruth Masterson Creber, John A Spertus, Gregg W Stone, Mario F Gaudino

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Alexander C GreggDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine.
Ruth Masterson CreberColumbia University School of Nursing, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.
John A SpertusUniversity of Missouri - Kansas City's Healthcare Institute for Innovations in Quality and Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
Gregg W StoneIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.
Mario F GaudinoDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine.

Funding

Strengthening Healthcare and Research Engagement through Data Sharing: SHARER01NS123639 · NINDS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Mario FL Gaudino, Ruth Marie Masterson Creber · 2021 to 2026
$4.4M
Randomized comparison of the clinical Outcome of single versus Multiple Arterial grafts: Quality of Life (ROMA:QOL)R01HL152021 · NHLBI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI GAUDINO, MARIO FL, MASTERSON CREBER, RUTH MARIE · 2020 to 2024
$4.1M
Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Tissue Characterization of Ischemic and Non-Ischemic Myocardium to Predict Left Ventricular Functional Recovery and Outcomes after Multivessel Coronary RevascularizationR01HL170566 · NHLBI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Mario FL Gaudino, Jonathan W. Weinsaft · 2023 to 2026
$3.0M
Towards Personalized Prosthetic Graft Replacement for Genetically Triggered Thoracic Aortic AneurysmsR01HL170570 · NHLBI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Mario FL Gaudino, Jonathan W. Weinsaft · 2023 to 2026
$2.8M
Improve the Meaning of Patient Reported Outcomes to Evaluate Effectiveness for Cardiac Care" (IMPROVE-Cardiac Care)R01HL161458 · NHLBI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI MASTERSON CREBER, RUTH MARIE · 2022 to 2025
$2.6M
Multidisciplinary Research Training in Cardiovascular DiseaseT32HL160520 · NHLBI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Geoffrey S Pitt, Jonathan W. Weinsaft · 2022 to 2026
$2.0M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL152021NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL161458NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL170566NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL170570NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL160520NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS123639
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review highlights the growing importance of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in cardiac surgery trials. Cardiac surgery trials have traditionally focused on cardiovascular events such as survival, stroke or myocardial infarction. However, as surgical outcomes have continued to improve, incorporating the patient's perspective through PROs has become increasingly critical. Incorporating PROs as key study outcomes provides essential patient data, while also overcoming the methodological limitations of classic composite endpoints. RECENT

findingsContinued advancements in cardiac surgery have significantly reduced classic endpoint differentials, making it challenging to evaluate interventions with their use alone. PROs offer more granular details on the effects of surgical interventions compared to classic clinical events and are widely used in other medical fields. More recently, cardiac surgery trials have begun successfully implementing PROs, though there is need for greater utilization across the discipline. SUMMARY: The integration of PROs into cardiac surgery trials allows for better understanding of the impact of surgical interventions on patients' daily lives. While barriers exist, efforts to develop and standardize PRO measures promise to enhance the relevance of cardiac surgery clinical trials and ultimately improve patient care.

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresClinical Trials as TopicPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumanscardiac surgeryclinical trialspatient reported outcomesquality of life

Identifiers

PMID40591401
PMCPMC12221202

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.