ReviewCJC open2026
Prognostic Models to Trigger Palliative Care Referrals in Heart Failure: A Scoping Review.
Review in CJC open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate prognostication in heart failure (HF) is challenging, due to its nonlinear course. This course impacts the timing of goals of care conversations and referrals to palliative care. Consequently, prognostication may contribute to misunderstandings that can lead to poor end-of-life experiences for patients. As many hospice and palliative care programs have prognostic referral criteria of 6 months or less, we aimed to identify, compare, and synthesize prognostication models that would inform decision-making for palliative consultation and referrals. A scoping review was undertaken to map and characterize prognostic models that predict 6-month mortality in HF patients. An iterative literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Google Scholar, and Ovid MEDLINE, supplemented by hand searching, to identify applicable articles. Twenty studies from cardiology, palliative care, and geriatric medicine disciplines were given priority for inclusion in data charting and synthesis. Most models demonstrated moderate-to-high risk of bias and applicability concerns. The models were developed in diverse clinical settings with mortality timeframes ranging from in-hospital death to 6 months. Four common themes for prognostic indicators emerged across the disciplines: age, functional status, comorbidities/organ involvement, and prognostic awareness. Over time, discipline-specific scores have evolved to become more alike, to better address the unique needs of the advanced HF population. Papers differed widely in patient population, goals of prognostication, and applicability for informing palliative or hospice referrals. Developing more unified, multidisciplinary prognostic approaches could have value in supporting timely goals of care conversations, and palliative care involvement, for HF 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.