ReviewJournal of clinical practice and research2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of H
Review in Journal of clinical practice and research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) now accounts for the majority of heart failure cases worldwide, and its prevalence continues to rise. Despite this, diagnosis remains challenging because of substantial patient heterogeneity and the absence of universally accepted diagnostic standards. To address these challenges, the H Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of H Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, representing diverse patient populations and clinical settings. The H Conclusion: Both scoring systems provide valuable diagnostic insights but exhibit unique strengths and limitations depending on the patient population and clinical context. These tools should be used to complement, rather than replace, comprehensive clinical evaluation. An effective strategy is to use the H
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.