ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2026
Performance of the MAGGIC Score in Individuals with Heart Failure: Validation in a Brazilian Population.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Risk Stratification in Heart Failure: The Role of the MAGGIC Score in a Brazilian Population.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) score is a risk stratification tool used to predict mortality in heart failure (HF). However, potential sex-related differences in its performance and its applicability to the Brazilian population remain uncertain.
objectivesTo evaluate sex-based differences in the performance of the MAGGIC score and to validate the score in a Brazilian HF cohort.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 866 patients followed at a HF outpatient clinic. The primary outcome was 3-year all-cause mortality. The MAGGIC score was calculated for each patient. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration was evaluated using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Analyses were performed for the overall cohort and stratified by sex. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe overall 3-year mortality rate was 33.4% (36.4% in men and 27.8% in women; p = 0.010). Predicted mortality was 20.9% (mean score 18.3 ± 7), with 22.7% for men and 19.1% for women. The score demonstrated good discrimination (area under the curve = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.686-0.754), with similar performance in men (0.704 [0.661-0.747]) and women (0.733 [0.674-0.792]). Calibration showed good agreement: overall chi-square (χ2) = 1.1 (p = 0.998), men χ2 = 0.9 (p = 0.999), and women χ2 = 1.3 (p = 0.995). Observed mortality was higher in moderate-risk groups, with no significant difference between moderate- and high-risk groups (p = 0.236).
conclusionThe MAGGIC score showed good performance in a Brazilian HF cohort, with no significant sex-based differences, although higher observed mortality was identified among moderate-risk patients.
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.