ReviewCirculation2023
Standardized Definitions for Cardiogenic Shock Research and Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: Scientific Expert Panel From the Shock Academic Research Consortium (SHARC).
Review in Circulation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers.
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
90 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hypoperfusion-Shock Continuum in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Review
- Building a Multidisciplinary Cardiogenic Shock Program in Latin America: Outcomes From the TecSalud Program.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Device-Related Adverse Events and Outcomes in Patients With Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support Placed at Referral Centers Versus Cardiogenic Shock Hub Centers: An Observational Analysis.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Observational
- Variation in Vasoactive Treatment Selection for Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN).Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Article
- Shock Timing in STEMI-CS: Management and Outcomes in a Resource-Limited Setting.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Kidney Failure in Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026Review
- The Role of PoCUS in the Diagnosis and Early Monitoring of Cardiogenic Shock in the Emergency Department: A Narrative Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Microaxial Flow Pump Support as a Bridge to Transaxillary TAVI-In-TAVI in Cardiogenic Shock.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Predictors of device-related adverse events in patients with intra-aortic ballon pump or microaxial flow pump for cardiogenic shock.JHLT open · 2026Article
- Hemodynamic Effects of Anesthetics, Sedatives, and Analgesics in the CICU: Clinical Decision Guidance.JACC. Advances · 2026Review
- Temporary mechanical circulatory support in fulminant myocarditis: can global collaborations bridge the gap?Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Papillary Muscle Rupture and Cardiogenic Shock Requiring ECMO Support in a Patient with Bipolar Disorder and Chronic Cannabis Use.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Effect of mechanical circulatory support on outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Recurrence of Takotsubo Syndrome: Incidence and Clinical Characteristics.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Real-World Infective Endocarditis in a Regional Hospital: Clinical Severity, Guideline Adherence, and Determinants of In-Hospital Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Novel treatment strategies in cardiogenic shock: an update on ongoing clinical trials.Heart failure reviews · 2026Review
- Right ventricular free-wall strain-based risk stratification for temporary mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock.ESC heart failure · 2026Article
- Cardiogenic shock is not a single entity: therapeutic implications.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Levosimendan in Cardiogenic Shock: A Review of Mechanisms, Clinical Evidence, and Therapeutic Use.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Shock Academic Research Consortium is a multi-stakeholder group, including representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies, industry, and payers, convened to develop pragmatic consensus definitions useful for the evaluation of clinical trials enrolling patients with cardiogenic shock, including trials evaluating mechanical circulatory support devices. Several in-person and virtual meetings were convened between 2020 and 2022 to discuss the need for developing the standardized definitions required for evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices in clinical trials for cardiogenic shock patients. The expert panel identified key concepts and topics by performing literature reviews, including previous clinical trials, while recognizing current challenges and the need to advance evidence-based practice and statistical analysis to support future clinical trials. For each category, a lead (primary) author was assigned to perform a literature search and draft a proposed definition, which was presented to the subgroup. These definitions were further modified after feedback from the expert panel meetings until a consensus was reached. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel recommendations focused on outcome definitions, including efficacy and safety.
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.