ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2025
Comparison of beta-blockers
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) accounts for approximately half of heart failure cases and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Beta-blockers (BB) and calcium channel blockers (CCB) are commonly used for symptom control and comorbidity management, but their comparative effectiveness and safety remain unclear.
aimTo compare the effectiveness and safety of BB
methodsSimulated data for 4000 HFpEF patients (2000 BB, 2000 CCB) were generated based on distributions extracted from electronic medical records spanning 2014-2023. Inclusion criteria included adults with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50% and initiation of BB or CCB. Effectiveness outcomes encompassed mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, and changes in clinical parameters. Safety outcomes included bradycardia, hypotension, and drug discontinuation. Statistical analyses used
resultsBaseline characteristics were largely balanced, with minor differences in sex, chronic kidney disease, systolic blood pressure, and left atrial volume index. BB demonstrated lower all-cause mortality (crude HR 0.78, 95%CI: 0.70-0.87,
conclusionBB may offer potential advantages in reducing mortality and hospitalizations in HFpEF compared to CCB, with distinct safety considerations. PSM confirmed these trends with reduced confounding. Personalized therapy is recommended, warranting prospective trials for validation.
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.