ReviewCurrent opinion in cardiology2025
Adding the patient perspective: the necessity of patient reported outcomes in cardiac surgery clinical trials.
Review in Current opinion in cardiology, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis review highlights the growing importance of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in cardiac surgery trials. Cardiac surgery trials have traditionally focused on cardiovascular events such as survival, stroke or myocardial infarction. However, as surgical outcomes have continued to improve, incorporating the patient's perspective through PROs has become increasingly critical. Incorporating PROs as key study outcomes provides essential patient data, while also overcoming the methodological limitations of classic composite endpoints. RECENT
findingsContinued advancements in cardiac surgery have significantly reduced classic endpoint differentials, making it challenging to evaluate interventions with their use alone. PROs offer more granular details on the effects of surgical interventions compared to classic clinical events and are widely used in other medical fields. More recently, cardiac surgery trials have begun successfully implementing PROs, though there is need for greater utilization across the discipline. SUMMARY: The integration of PROs into cardiac surgery trials allows for better understanding of the impact of surgical interventions on patients' daily lives. While barriers exist, efforts to develop and standardize PRO measures promise to enhance the relevance of cardiac surgery clinical trials and ultimately improve patient care.
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.