ArticleBMC primary care2025
Developing core indicators for identifying people at risk of delayed heart failure diagnosis.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A bibliometric analysis of artificial intelligence applications in heart failure.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Primary Care Signals and Diagnostic Pathways Before Incident Heart Failure: A Systematic Scoping Review.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure (HF) is frequently diagnosed during hospital admission, often after symptoms have been present for some time. Those diagnosed in hospital typically experience higher mortality reflecting not only possible diagnostic delay but also greater illness severity at presentation. The reasons behind delayed HF diagnosis are multifaceted and complex. This study aimed to achieve consensus on a priority list of patient, clinical, and service-level factors associated with delayed HF diagnosis, and to identify indicators that could support earlier detection of undiagnosed HF in primary care.
methodsA three-round modified e-Delphi process involved patients and clinicians from primary and specialist care. Participants rated sociodemographic and clinical factors for their importance in delayed HF diagnosis and clinicians also rated service-level factors and identified indicators of undiagnosed HF. Consensus was defined as two-thirds agreement with stable opinions across rounds (McNemar p ≥ 0.05). Indicators of undiagnosed HF required additional ranking in the top 5 by > 50% of clinicians.
resultsThe first survey was completed by 18 patients (67% women, median age 61) and 27 clinicians (67% nurses/allied health professionals, 33% doctors). Consensus was achieved, comprising 15 factors and 5 indicators. Key sociodemographic factors were patients lacking HF knowledge, lack of access to GP/cardiologist appointments, symptom confusion, younger age (< 50), and learning difficulties. Clinical factors included multimorbidity, respiratory/mental health conditions, obesity, and depression. Service-level factors included poor HF knowledge, limited N-terminal pro-B-type Natriuretic Peptide (NT-proBNP) testing and echocardiogram access in primary care, and fragmented care. The top 5 indicators of undiagnosed HF included elevated NT-proBNP without referral, loop diuretic use, and overlapping cardiac and respiratory histories.
conclusionsThis study identifies critical factors and indicators that can aid earlier HF diagnosis in primary care. These indicators could be embedded into electronic health record-based alerts and used to support decision-making in primary care.
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.