SynthesisAnnals of Saudi medicine
Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence across various diagnostic approaches.
Synthesis in Annals of Saudi medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
backgroundCirrhotic cardiomyopathy (CCM) is a cardiac dysfunction associated with liver cirrhosis, yet no consensus exists on standardized diagnostic criteria. We aimed to assess CCM prevalence using several guidelines.
methodsA systematic search of four databases (PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and EBSCO) identified observational studies reporting CCM prevalence in cirrhotic patients based on the three criteria: the World Congress of Gastroenterology (Montreal 2005), the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE 2009), and the Cirrhotic Cardiomyopathy Consortium (CCC 2019). A random-effects meta-analysis and subgroup analyses were performed using R Studio.
resultsSeventy-six studies including 7445 patients were analyzed. Overall pooled CCM prevalence was 48% (95% CI: 44-52%, I
conclusionCCM prevalence varies by diagnostic criteria and cirrhosis severity. Further studies are needed to determine the clinical relevance and prognostic value of each criterion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024511527.
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.