Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40610746›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2025

Transition from pediatric to adult cardiology care in congenital heart disease: contemporary considerations.

Charmaine Lam, Michelle Gurvitz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors.

Charmaine LamBoston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Michelle GurvitzBoston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. Michelle.Gurvitz@cardio.chboston.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advancements in diagnostic techniques and procedural innovations for patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) over the past 3-4 decades have led to an expected survival to adulthood rate of over 95%. However, at least 30% of adolescents and emerging adults with CHD experience a prolonged gap in care or are lost to follow-up. Patients experiencing a gap are more likely to have adverse outcomes, so coordinated transition and transfer programs between pediatric and adult care are essential. This review builds on the foundation set by recent US and European consensus statements and examines the current literature regarding transition and transfer of care for patients with CHD. We present a narrative review on transition of care in CHD summarizing contemporary considerations and emphasizing a comprehensive approach. To date, most research has focused on the phases before and around the point of transfer. Despite great efforts in improving processes, significant knowledge gaps remain in the optimization of transition and transfer. Novel programs have demonstrated short-term improvements in disease knowledge but have not consistently addressed other outcomes such as self-management, healthcare utilization, social interactions, and quality of life. In addition, effects on long term medical outcomes such as hospitalizations or mortality are unknown.Conclusion: There is a paucity of data on the implementation and impact of interventions for short term and post-transfer outcomes of CHD patients. Findings in this review suggest further research is needed to explore transition and transfer protocols and determine effectiveness and applicability in multiple healthcare settings.

Indexed as

Heart Defects, CongenitalTransition to Adult CareAdolescentAdultChildHumansQuality of LifeCongenital heart diseaseGaps in careTransition of care

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.