ReviewEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2017
End points in heart failure-are we doing it right?
Review in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Dyspnea Measurement in Acute Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Evidence Map of Randomized Controlled Trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Remote Dielectric Sensing Technology in Heart Failure: Correlating Lung-Fluid Volume Shifts with Postural Changes and Dyspnea Severity.CJC open · 2025Article
- MiR-1-3p that correlates with left ventricular function of HCM can serve as a potential target and differentiate HCM from DCM.Journal of translational medicine · 2018Article
- No, we are not-we keep forgetting the right ventricle.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHeart Failure (HF) continues to be associated with high mortality and morbidity. We attempted to identify the most common end points used in phase 3 clinical trials of heart failure and discuss their merits and demerits.
methodsLiterature evaluation was done using the databases PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov from January 2010 to December 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of therapeutic drugs on heart failure. Following the literature search, the data on the primary end points were extracted from each of the selected trials. The most recurrent and important end points of Phase III clinical trials for HF over the last six years were identified for further discussion.
resultsFrom our search, it was observed that the most common end points used in trials with acute heart failure (AHF) were composite end point, dyspnea, CV death and most common end points used in trials with chronic heart failure (CHF) were composite end point, 6 minute walk test (6MWT), CV death or HFH, Vo2 max, all cause mortality, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and dyspnea.
conclusionChoosing the appropriate end points is a critical step in the study design that could turn the tide in the beleaguered drug development pipeline of HF, resulting in the right molecule reaching the HF community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28280889What 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.