ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease2025
A detailed profiling study from the national Australian Congenital Heart Disease registry: rationale and design.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging communication gaps to improve adult congenital heart disease care: patient perspectives from a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Living with congenital heart disease: a qualitative study to explore psychosocial impacts in adulthood.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous research has outlined significant gaps in the care of children and adults with Congenital Heart Disease (CHD). The Australian Study of the Burden and Outcomes of CHD will assess medical, psychological, social and economic issues affecting CHD patients and carers and provide a detailed account of CHD patients' healthcare utilisation. Methods: A random sample of patients aged ≥5 years, equally split between genders, CHD complexity (mild, moderate, severe) and rural and remote locations (20-25%) was extracted from the National Australian CHD Registry (n = 68,214) from four large participating CHD centres (2 adult and 2 child). Patients and their carers were invited to participate in an in-person study visit for physical assessment and for a series of surveys questioning physical and mental health, neurodevelopment, and quality of life. Results: Of 6,726 contacted patients, 1,911 (28%) consented, with 99.5% of surveys completed online. 1,658 consented participants completed at least one study activity (87% response rate). Proxies/carers completed surveys for 11% of participants (primarily those under age 8 or with intellectual disability). All study activities were completed by 750 respondents (45%). Respondents were older (median age 24 [IQR 12-41 years] vs 18 [IQR 11-35 years], p = 0.005) and had a higher proportion of severe CHD (28%) compared to non-respondents (23%). No significant differences in disease complexity were observed between respondents and non-respondents. Conclusion: This multi-site study of over 1600 CHD patients aims to offer the first comprehensive profiling of the burdens and outcomes faced by Australia's growing CHD population.
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.