Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41996055›Full record

ReviewCurrent heart failure reports2026

Understanding Geographic Variations in Heart Failure Clinical Trials.

Luca Fazzini, Giada Colombo, Gregorio Tersalvi, Jolie Bruno, Riccardo M Inciardi, Emilia D'Elia

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current heart failure reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Luca FazziniCardiovascular Department, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Piazzale OMS 1, Bergamo, 24128, Italy.
Giada ColomboDe Gasperis Cardio Center, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milano, Italy.
Gregorio TersalviDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jolie BrunoDepartment of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Riccardo M InciardiCardiology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, ASST Spedali Civili di Brescia, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Emilia D'EliaCardiovascular Department, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Piazzale OMS 1, Bergamo, 24128, Italy. edelia@asst-pg23.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo synthesize geographic variation in heart failure (HF) trials across baseline characteristics, treatment effects, and safety over the whole spectrum of ejection fraction, and to identify methodological and implementation factors that influence external validity and equity. RECENT

findingsHistorical and contemporary HF trials reveal marked regional heterogeneity in enrollment, age, comorbidities, biomarkers, background guideline-directed medical therapy, and device use. Despite this, relative efficacy is generally consistent across regions, while absolute risk reduction, safety signals, and discontinuation rates may vary with baseline risk, care delivery, and trial conduct. Geographic differences in HF trials largely reflect health-system and methodological factors rather than biology alone, challenging generalizability. Future research should ensure balanced enrollment, prespecified region-by-treatment analyses, and pragmatic designs. Integrating implementation science will improve the widespread use of effective therapies and lead to more globally applicable evidence.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicHeart FailureStroke VolumeHumansEquityHeart failureHeart failure geographyHeart failure trialsImplementation science

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.