ReviewIntensive care medicine2025
Cardiogenic shock: diagnosis, phenotyping and management.
Review in Intensive care medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disparities in the management of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a questionnaire survey in Beijing.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Hemodynamic Effects of Anesthetics, Sedatives, and Analgesics in the CICU: Clinical Decision Guidance.JACC. Advances · 2026Review
- Stratifying mortality risk in hypotension using outcome-oriented clustering of vital sign trajectories.iScience · 2026Article
- Review
- Phenotyping cardiogenic shock: an insight from the gulf cardiogenic shock registry.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- The immunometabolic axis of sepsis-related myocardial injury: macrophage reprogramming as a central mechanism and therapeutic target.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Defining a national standard for ECMO emergency care.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic shock: from standardization to precision-a new era in critical care cardiology?Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion caused by primary cardiac failure, in which the heart cannot generate sufficient output despite adequate preload and is associated with very high mortality rates. The emergence of precision medicine may enable tailored interventions based on individual patient profiles, including genetic, biomarker, imaging, and clinical data. Advanced hemodynamic monitoring, mechanical circulatory support devices with smaller profiles and higher flow, and targeted pharmacologic therapies have expanded the therapeutic possibilities in CS. However, integrating these novel approaches into clinical practice requires careful alignment with evidence-based medicine. Balancing innovation with robust clinical evidence is crucial. Many technologies enter the clinical sphere before comprehensive trials confirm their benefit, creating potential risks in vulnerable CS patients. Precision medicine must therefore be grounded on rigorous data from randomized-controlled trials, registries, and meta-analyses to ensure safety and efficacy. Collaborative efforts, including large-scale data sharing and international research networks, are essential to bridge the gap between innovation and evidence. The goal is to move beyond a one-size-fits-all model toward a more nuanced, patient-centered approach while maintaining scientific rigor.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40768067What 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.