ReviewOpen heart2025
When cardiology forgets to ask why.
Review in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contemporary cardiology faces a paradox: unprecedented technological capability coincides with declining scientific curiosity and clinical judgement. This manuscript examines the shift from question-driven, physiologic medicine to an approach dominated by procedural feasibility, commercial influence and algorithmic decision-making. Advances such as transcatheter interventions, advanced imaging and artificial intelligence have broadened therapeutic options but also encouraged action to precede reasoning, allowing anatomical suitability to overshadow clinical appropriateness and patient-centred values.The paper describes how industry pressures, guideline structures and training environments normalise interventionist reflexes and weaken the discipline of restraint, while research increasingly prioritises surrogate outcomes and validation of existing technologies. In response, the manuscript advocates for restoring the 'why' in cardiology through renewed critical thinking, meaningful outcomes and ethically grounded decisions. This requires cultural, educational and structural reform so that technology enhances rather than displaces the scientific and humanistic foundations of the field.
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.