Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28280889›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2017

End points in heart failure-are we doing it right?

Luxitaa Goenka, Melvin George, Sandhiya Selvarajan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. No, we are not-we keep forgetting the right ventricle.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Luxitaa GoenkaDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, SRM Nagar, Potheri, Kattankulathur, Chennai, 603203, Tamil Nadu, India.
Melvin GeorgeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, SRM Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, SRM Nagar, Potheri, Kattankulathur, Chennai, 603203, Tamil Nadu, India. melvingeorge2003@gmail.com.
Sandhiya SelvarajanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, JIPMER, Puducherry, 605006, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Research DesignClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicDrug DesignEndpoint DeterminationHeart FailureHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAcute heart failureChronic heart failureComposite end pointDyspneaPrimary end points

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.