Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36967841›Full record

ArticlePostepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology2022

Eligible-and-enrolled vs. eligible-but-not-enrolled patients with chronic ischaemic heart failure in randomized clinical trials of myocardial regeneration.

Łukasz Czyż, Jakub Chmiel, Leszek Drabik, Adam Mazurek, Ewa Kwiecień, Martyna Sikorska, Maciej Skubera, Wojciech Zasada, Piotr Podolec, Piotr Musiałek

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Łukasz CzyżDepartment of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases, Jagiellonian University, John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Jakub ChmielDepartment of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases, Jagiellonian University, John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Leszek DrabikDepartment of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases, Jagiellonian University, John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Adam MazurekDepartment of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases, Jagiellonian University, John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Ewa KwiecieńDepartment of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases, Jagiellonian University, John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Martyna SikorskaDepartment of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases, Jagiellonian University, John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Maciej SkuberaDepartment of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases, Jagiellonian University, John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Wojciech ZasadaKCRI, Krakow, Poland.
Piotr PodolecDepartment of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases, Jagiellonian University, John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Piotr MusiałekDepartment of Cardiac and Vascular Diseases, Jagiellonian University, John Paul II Hospital, Krakow, Poland.
Jagiellonian University · PLKrakow Cardiovascular Research Institute · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Clinical trial applicability to routine clinical practice is a fundamental consideration. Little is known about factors that determine enrolment (vs. non-enrolment) in chronic ischaemic heart failure (CIHF) interventional randomized controlled trials (iRCT). Aim: To compare clinical characteristics and medical therapy in eligible-and-enrolled (E-E) vs. eligible-but-not-enrolled (E-NE) patients in CIHF myocardial regeneration iRCTs. Material and methods: Clinical characteristics and medical treatment were compared for E-E and E-NE in 4 periods (32 months): P1 (iRCT#1 recruitment), P2 (between iRCT#1 and iRCT#2), P3 (iRCT#2 recruitment), P4 (post iRCT#2). iRCT#1 and iRCT#2 shared inclusion/exclusion criteria. Results: Evaluation involved 5,436 hospitalized patients (P1-P4; CIHF-526). 283 were iRCT eligible (53.8%). The eligibility rate was similar throughout P1-P4 (43.1-58.5%, Conclusions: CIHF medical management was similar in E-E and E-NE. Ineligibility resulted mainly from recent/planned intervention outside iRCT and age > 80 years. LV impairment was more severe in E-E patients, consistent with higher-risk patient enrolment in CIHF-iRCTs. This contrasts with typical lower-risk patient enrolment in other cardiovascular RCT types and populations.

Indexed as

eligibilityenrolmentheart failuremyocardial regenerationrandomized clinical trialsselection bias

Identifiers

PMID36967841
PMCPMC10031667
OpenAlexW4312284546

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.