ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease2026
A bibliometric analysis of medication studies in congenital heart disease.
Review in International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Randomized controlled trials represent robust foundational material for evidence-based clinical practice in cardiology; however, such trials appear to be scarce in congenital heart disease (CHD). No bibliometric analysis has formally quantified nor characterized this gap in the literature, nor examined the impact of existing medication studies in CHD patients. Objectives: This investigation aimed to evaluate and characterize existing medication studies in congenital heart disease. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare and Academic Search Premier were searched (Jan 2000-May 2024) for CHD drug studies. Trials focusing on genetic conditions associated with cardiovascular abnormalities (e.g. Marfan syndrome) and pulmonary hypertension not associated with congenital heart disease were excluded.PROSPERO ID: CRD420251073438. Results: A total of 160 CHD medication studies involving 59,208 participants were included, spanning a study period of 24.5 years (2000-2024). Sex was reported for 20,092 participants; 10,514 (52.3%) were women. Only 29.4% (n = 47) of trials were RCTs. Time-series breakpoint analysis showed an inflection in annual publication output in 2013 (p = 0.009), with growth before and contraction thereafter. Pulmonary-hypertension drugs accounted for 58.1% of publications. Collectively, industry-funded trials were over twice as likely to be RC type trials (56.7% vs 23.1% in non-industry funded studies). Conclusions: Contemporary CHD pharmacotherapy research is limited in spectrum/demographics and appears to have been plateauing globally since 2013. Many studies are single-center, pulmonary-hypertension-focused and not placebo-controlled. There is a need to develop a broader disease evidence-base for medication interventions in CHD.
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.