SynthesisHeart failure reviews2026
Palliative care interventions and outcomes in patients with heart failure: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An expanding research base of systematic reviews has evaluated the effect of palliative care (PC) interventions delivered by primary or specialty PC providers for patients with heart failure (HF) and their caregivers. However, the overall evidence base has not been systematically examined. This umbrella review synthesizes the evidence regarding PC interventions among patients with HF to: 1) Describe interventions based on the palliative care domains in the AHA/ACC/HFSA HF guidelines, 2) Examine the effect of interventions on patient-centered and healthcare utilization outcomes, and 3) Provide recommendations for practice, policy and future research. Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for umbrella reviews, we comprehensively searched for systematic reviews in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase databases with no date restrictions. Published, peer-reviewed reviews were included. The search identified 19 reviews (high-quality, 11 with meta-analyses), of 104 unique primary studies after de-duplication (low to moderate quality). Primary and specialty PC was associated with improvements in quality of life, depression, advanced care planning, and reduced hospitalizations. The effect of PC on reducing symptom burden was inconclusive. Limited evidence demonstrated improvements in anxiety, satisfaction with care, caregiver burden, and hospital length of stay. PC did not significantly impact mortality rates or hospice referral. The concordance of the overall evidence was high, and although the quality of primary studies was overall low to moderate, findings confirm that primary and specialty PC offer meaningful benefits for patients with HF. Future research is required on caregiver outcomes, medically complex illness trajectories, intervention timing and fidelity, standardized outcome measurements, and longitudinal study designs with larger sample sizes.
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.