ReviewCJC open2025
A Systematic Review of the Prognostic Value of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Patients with Ischemic and Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy.
Review in CJC open, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The prognostic utility of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in heart failure (HF) is well established; however, whether optimal CPET parameter thresholds differ across HF etiologies remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to determine how CPET-derived parameters and their prognostic threshold values differ, and their association with adverse outcomes, in patients with ischemic vs nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Methods: Eligible studies assessed adult HF patients and reported outcomes of all-cause mortality, left ventricular assist device implantation, heart transplantation, or hospitalization. CPET parameters and associated threshold values were extracted, and risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for cohort studies. Results: Four studies comprising 491 ischemic and 218 nonischemic HF patients were included. Peak oxygen consumption (pVO Conclusions: Significant heterogeneity was present in study design, patient populations, and CPET variables assessed. The few consistently assessed prognostic thresholds were similar across HF etiologies. Peak oxygen consumption (pVO
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.