ArticleCJC open2026
Consensus Methodology for the Canadian Brain and Heart Clinical Practice Guidelines.
Article in CJC open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Guideline
- Management of brain-heart multimorbidity: a clinical practice guideline.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026Guideline
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain and heart diseases are leading causes of morbidity and mortality globally. Emerging evidence suggests a close interplay between brain and heart conditions, due to overlapping risk factors, common mechanistic pathways, and genetic factors. Therefore, a call has been made for the use of more interdisciplinary approaches to the prevention and treatment of brain and heart conditions. In this paper, we report on the consensus methodology used for the development of the first Canadian brain and heart clinical practice guidelines. The consensus panel included 10 expert subgroups, to develop research questions and recommendations for specific brain-heart conditions, the McMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Team, to support the literature search, review, and critical appraisal, and an evidence review team to ensure the rigor and consistent application of the methodology. The consensus process followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) framework, with the following 4 key stages: (i) the McMaster Evidence Review and Synthesis Team conducted systematic reviews and provided subgroups with data extraction and evaluation tools; (ii) A consensus conference was held, with evidence and recommendations evaluated and voted on by all subgroups; (iii) the evidence review team conducted a final review of evidence for each subgroup and determined the level and strength of each recommendation; and (iv) final recommendations and evidence levels were submitted to all subgroups for ratification and approval by the steering committee. This paper summarizes and describes the consensus methods used to evaluate and integrate evidence from both the cardiac and neurological medical literature for the development of the first Canadian brain and heart clinical practice guidelines.
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.