SynthesisEchocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.)2026
Non-Invasive Myocardial Work Indices (GWI, GCW, GWW, and GWE) as Predictors of Clinical Outcomes Across Cardiac Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.), 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
purposeNon-invasive myocardial work (MW) indices derived from pressure-strain loop analysis, including global work index (GWI), global constructive work (GCW), global wasted work (GWW), and global work efficiency (GWE), have emerged as novel predictors of clinical outcomes across a broad spectrum of cardiac diseases. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to comprehensively synthesize published evidence examining the prognostic value of MW indices for predicting clinical outcomes and their diagnostic performance for identifying disease-specific abnormalities across cardiac conditions, including heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, valvular heart disease, cardiomyopathy, cardiotoxicity in oncology, and cardiac resynchronization therapy response.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (up to May 2026) identified 24 eligible studies encompassing 4,710 participants. Random-effects inverse-variance models with restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation and Hartung-Knapp confidence interval correction were applied. Direction-harmonized hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR), and standardized odds ratios (sOR) were pooled as an exploratory summary of ratio-based effects, such that values exceeding 1.0 consistently indicated higher clinical risk with an adverse MW profile, while the HR-only model was retained as the principal prognostic sensitivity analysis. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the GRADE framework.
resultsThe primary pooled analysis yielded a random-effects estimate of 1.12 (95% CI: 0.99-1.27); however, substantial heterogeneity was observed (I
conclusionMW indices may provide prognostic and diagnostic information across multiple cardiac diseases; however, individual indices appear to reflect distinct physiological mechanisms and may demonstrate disease-specific prognostic utility. Given the substantial heterogeneity across disease populations, disease-focused interpretation may be more informative than reliance on an overall pooled estimate. These non-invasive echocardiographic indices may offer incremental value beyond LVEF and GLS for cardiovascular risk stratification and monitoring in selected clinical settings, including chronic cardiovascular disease and cancer therapy-related cardiotoxicity. Prospective multicenter studies are required to standardize optimal cut-off values and support future clinical guideline incorporation.
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.