SynthesisCurrent heart failure reports2026
Face-to-Face and Internet-based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Patients with Heart Failure: an Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.
Synthesis 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.
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
purpose of reviewThe present study aims to provide an up-to-date umbrella review of existing meta-analyses of randomized control trials (RCT) of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) among patients with heart failure (HF). RECENT
findingsThe umbrella review covered five meta-analyses published in the past five years with 18 primary studies (conducted between 2010 and 2022) of 1,687 non-duplicated patients aged 51.63 to 77.40. Primary studies originated from the USA, Sweden, Netherlands, China, Iran, and Philippines. Common benefits of CBT included depressive symptoms (89%), quality of life (56%), anxiety symptoms (39%), self-care (33%), 6-minute walk distance (33%), and health status (17%). Evidence varied depending on the timepoint of follow-up assessment and the specific measurement used to evaluate the outcome. No meta-analyses pooled the effect sizes for iCBT and analyzed the specific therapeutic elements in CBT. No meta-regression was performed. Individual participant data meta-analyses with meta-regression should be performed to identify common moderators and factors that can influence treatment adherence. The current research would also benefit from additional RCT evidence focusing specifically on iCBT for patients with HF.
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.