ArticleJACC. Case reports2025
Barriers to Cardiogenic Shock Recognition: A Qualitative Analysis.
Article in JACC. Case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex heterogeneous syndrome with various causes and phenotypes, making it difficult for clinicians to diagnose. At our institution, we found several cases of missed and late recognition of CS. PROJECT RATIONALE: Our institutional CS work group interviewed clinicians to identify barriers to CS recognition. Thirty-minute interviews with a series of 6 scripted questions were conducted. PROJECT SUMMARY: Fifteen interviews were conducted among the following clinicians: cardiology fellow (n = 1), emergency medicine (EM) resident (n = 3), heart failure nurse practitioner (n = 1), general cardiologist (n = 2), EM physician assistant (n = 2), internal medicine resident (n = 3), heart failure cardiologist (n = 1), EM physician (n = 1), and internal medicine physician (n = 1). The top barrier themes that emerged were 1) focus on septic shock management, 2) need for CS-specific training, 3) missed subtle signs of CS, 4) resource allocation, and 5) systems improvement. TAKE-HOME MESSAGES: There are several barriers to CS recognition that are common among clinicians. Future research should evaluate how to address these barriers to improve outcomes.
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.