ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2024
Blueprint for Building and Sustaining a Cardiogenic Shock Program: Qualitative Survey of 12 US Programs.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cardiogenic Shock: Clinical Management, Outcomes and Future Directions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock (CS) programs have been associated with improved outcomes, yet practical guidance for developing a CS program is lacking. Methods: A survey on CS program development and operational best practices was administered to 12 institutions in diverse sociogeographic regions and practice settings. Common steps in program development were identified. Results: Key steps for program development were identified: measuring baseline outcomes; identifying subspecialty champions; gaining leadership and team buy-in; developing institution-specific CS protocols; educating staff and referring providers; consulting with external experts; and developing quality assessment and process improvement. Conclusions: An assessment of 12 US CS programs highlights a blueprint for establishing and maintaining a successful, multidisciplinary shock program.
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.