ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2008
Statins and congestive heart failure.
Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2008. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite many post hoc analyses of cardiovascular databases in recent years suggesting a benefit of statins in the prevention and treatment of congestive heart failure (HF), a prospective study of statin therapy on two clinically relevant end points--HF morbidity and survival--had not been reported until 2007. However, a large-scale prospective trial, Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA), has just reported its primary results. These results somewhat surprisingly show no survival benefit in a group of patients with ischemic systolic HF given low-dose rosuvastatin. In addition to this uncertainty generated by the results of CORONA, there remains additional uncertainty in the existing, predominantly retrospective data on statins because of the potential bias in study designs, use of post hoc subgroup analyses, and lack of mechanistic data. This review critically evaluates the recent literature in this area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18706277What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.