ArticleiScience2025
Evolution and regional disparities in guideline recommendations and evidence levels for structural heart disease.
Article in iScience, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significant advances have been made in the field of structural heart disease (SHD), yet guideline characteristics and evolution across regions remain uncertain. This study aims to analyze the distribution of class of recommendation and level of evidence (LOE) of SHD guidelines across American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and Chinese cardiovascular societies. We evaluated 1,867 recommendations from prior and current guidelines. In current guidelines, strong recommendations (Class I/III) constituted 53.2%, yet only 8.1% (38/470) were supported by highest-quality evidence (LOE A). Regional variations existed, with ACC/AHA showing predominant LOE B recommendations (56.3%) while ESC and Chinese guidelines featured mainly LOE C (79.4% and 69.5%, respectively). Longitudinal analysis revealed overall evidence improvement. These findings highlight persistent challenges in aligning recommendation strength with evidence quality across healthcare systems. Additionally, the disparity across regions underlines the importance of establishing international collaborative mechanisms to coordinate guideline development processes.
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.