ArticleThe British journal of cardiology2025
Cardiology without ejection fraction.
Article in The British journal of cardiology, 2025. 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.
- Ejection Fraction in the Fast Lane.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ejection fraction (EF) offers a remarkable approach to assess ventricular and atrial pumping capacity. Its value can easily be calculated, and it seems to reflect performance. However, EF is a non-preferred candidate from a conceptual point of view. To fully understand the weakness of the EF metric, it is necessary to appreciate that its numerical value (by its definition) solely depends on end-systolic volume (ESV) and end-diastolic volume (EDV). This tight mathematical connection can best be graphically represented in the ventricular volume domain while relating ESV to EDV, leading to straight conclusions about EF. No previous paper has addressed the curious tradition of applying EF in cardiology in terms of the indirect reasons for its popularity, as well as the intrinsic shortcomings, alongside the statistical irregularities involved. This review highlights the misleading attractiveness of EF, while also offering logical alternatives without invoking the need for relying on additional data beyond standard measurements.
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.