ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Assessing the efficacy of the ESC 2025 guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease and pregnancy.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHuman Pregnancy-related Cardiovascular Diseases (CVDs) are unique and difficult to study because of many unknown, potentially harmful effects of medical interventions on the fetus. Because of that, there are only sparse data and mechanisms available, which could provide recommendations with strong evidence for physicians. STUDY
designTo assess the efficacy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2025 Guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease and Pregnancy (Pregnancy-GL-2025), we used a previously developed mathematical analytic method.
main outcome measuresA total of 208 Recommendations and Evidence were analyzed, of which 161 Recommendations concern certain CVD. To assess the efficacy, the Certainty/Uncertainty ratio and the Certainty Index (CI, ranging from -1 to +1) were calculated.
resultsIn total, the Pregnancy-GL-2025 showed 64.4% of the Class I and III Recommendations (CVDs, 62.7%). The ESC Pregnancy-GL-2025 includes mostly Evidence C (89.4%) and showed 78.8% Certainty (CI = 0.58). Although it includes only a few higher-quality Evidence, these are related to the Class I Recommendations, resulting in a high level of Certainty.
conclusionsThe mathematical analysis of the ESC Pregnancy-GL-2025 showed that it has several helpful Recommendations, yet they are supported primarily by Evidence C. However, because of a few higher-quality evidence related to Class I Recommendations, the overall efficacy of the guideline was relatively high. In addition, the mathematical analysis used instead of frequency analyses does not imply a lower efficacy of a guideline. Thus, we propose that this type of evaluation of guidelines, as a complementary quantitative approach to describing guidelines' recommendations, can facilitate the development of new guidelines.
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.