SynthesisESC heart failure2021
Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Economic burden of heart failure in Europe: A systematic review of costs and cost-effectiveness.ESC heart failure · 2025Pooled it
- Multicomponent integrated care for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis.ESC heart failure · 2023Pooled it
- Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.ESC heart failure · 2021Pooled it
- Geriatricians' perceptions on multidisciplinary heart failure care in Belgium an exploratory qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Quality of Life and Experience of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Their Caregivers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The effect of management of older patients with heart failure by general physicians on mortality and hospitalization rates: a retrospective cohort study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Article
- An Innovative Patient-Centred Approach to Heart Failure Management: The Best Care Heart Failure Integrated Disease-Management Program.CJC open · 2024Article
- Burden and predictors of mortality related to cardiogenic shock in the South Bronx Population.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2024Article
- Acute Heart Failure Is a Malignant Process: But We Can Induce Remission.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Review
- Community pharmacists' perceptions on multidisciplinary heart failure care: an exploratory qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- An evidence map of systematic reviews on models of outpatient care for patients with chronic heart diseases.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Mixed-methods evaluation of a multifaceted heart failure intervention in general practice: the OSCAR-HF pilot study.ESC heart failure · 2023Observational
- A comparison between hospital follow-up and collaborative follow-up in patients with acute heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2023Observational
- Variables Determining Higher Home Care Effectiveness in Patients with Chronic Cardiovascular Disease.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of Integrated Care for Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, Cardiovascular and Chronic Respiratory Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multidisciplinary disease management programmes (DMPs) are a cornerstone of modern guideline-recommended care for heart failure (HF). Few programmes are community initiated or involve primary care professionals, despite the importance of home-based care for HF. We compared the outcomes of different multidisciplinary HF DMPs in relation to their recruitment setting and involvement of primary care health professionals. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane between 2000 and 2020 using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Our meta-analysis included 19 randomized controlled trials (7577 patients), classified according to recruitment setting and involvement of primary care professionals. Thirteen studies recruited in the hospital (n = 5243 patients) and six in the community (n = 2334 patients). Only six studies involved primary care professionals (n = 3427 patients), with two of these recruited in the community (n = 225 patients). Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruited in the community had no significant effect on all-cause and HF readmissions nor on mortality, irrespective of primary care involvement. Studies that recruited in the hospital demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.76, 0.98]), HF readmissions (0.70, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89]), and all-cause readmissions (0.72, 95% CI [0.60, 0.87]). However, the difference in effect size between recruitment setting and involvement of primary care was not significant in a meta-regression analysis. Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruit in the community have no significant effect on mortality or hospital readmissions, unlike DMPs that recruit in the hospital, although the difference in effect size was not significant in a meta-regression analysis. Only six multidisciplinary studies involved primary care professionals. Given demographic evolutions and the importance of integrated home-based care for patients with HF, future multidisciplinary HF DMPs should consider integrating primary care professionals and evaluating the effectiveness of this model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.