Last updated on

Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes
Research Hotspot & Journal Scope - Trials


Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes - DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005420
Integrating Quality of Life and Survival Outcomes Cardiovascular Clinical Trials.

Jacob V Spertus · Laura A Hatfield · David J Cohen · Suzanne V Arnold · Martin Ho · Philip G Jones · Martin Leon · Bram Zuckerman · John A Spertus ·

Medicine
PDF
Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes - DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005095
Integrating Data From Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies to Assess Survival in Rare Diseases

Adam Torbicki · Marisa Bacchi · Marion Delcroix · Harrison W Farber · Hossein-Ardeschir Ghofrani · Brian Hennessy · Pavel Jansa · Sanjay Mehta · Loïc Perchenet · Tomas Pulido · Daniel Rosenberg · Lewis J Rubin · B K S Sastry · Gérald Simonneau · Olivier Sitbon · Rogério Souza · Lee-Jen Wei · Richard Channick · Raymond Benza ·

Medicine
PDF
Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes - DOI: 10.1161/circoutcomes.119.005755
Fragility Index in Cardiovascular Randomized Controlled Trials.

Muhammad Shahzeb Khan · Rohan Kumar Ochani · Asim Shaikh · Muhammad Shariq Usman · Naser Yamani · Safi U Khan · M Hassan Murad · John Mandrola · Rami Doukky · Richard A Krasuski ·

Medicine
PDF

Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible trials updated on November 2018.

The safety and efficacy of amrubicin in the treatment of previously untreated extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis [10.2147/OTT.S200601]


Methods and Results: Our analysis included 10 785 black women enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study and Clinical Trials cohort.

Stress, Resilience, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Among Black Women: Results From the Women’s Health Initiative [10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005284]


endoscopes in transsphenoidal surgery reach opposite conclusions in their systematic reviews [2, 12]? Or why awake surgery enthusiasts reach different conclusions in systematic reviews on the impact of awake surgery than others [4, 14]? Or is this why radiotherapy usually reduces recurrence rates in atypical meningioma if studies are done by radiation oncologists [18, 20–22] but not necessarily if the studies are done by neurosurgeons [7, 13, 15, 17]? Is also our interpretation of the evidence different because we belong to different herds or genealogies where perhaps heretics are sanctioned and only accepted facts prevail? Does this make us read the scientific literature like the devil reads the bible? Is this why most vascular neurosurgeons refuse to believe results from the Aruba trial [16] or the Scottish AVM cohort study [1]? Or is this why many spine surgeons still like to fuse degenerative lumbar spines despite the negative trials [5, 6] (under the motto: screw the evidence)? The present study is an important reminder that not only traditional conflicts of interest matter, but our background, herd, or subspecialty might affect scientific results significantly.

Are other scientific genealogies reporting alternative facts? [10.1007/s00701-019-03805-8]


Panjabi and Iskander suggest that the trials included in the NMA violated the similarity and consistency of assumptions in NMAs, leading to biased treatment effects.

In Reply: Network Meta-analyses Are Not About a Single Treatment But About Sets of Regimens. [10.1016/j.clinthera.2018.11.011]


However, in landmark head-to-head comparison trials, the thiazide-like diuretic chlorthalidone has been shown to be superior to ACE-I and CCB in decreasing left ventricle mass and preventing heart failure in hypertensive patients.

Compelling therapy of LVH: straight (and not-so-straight) inferences from evidence [10.1186/s40885-019-0131-y]


Highly Related Keywords from Trials

Research Hotspot

Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes

Research Hotspot
Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes Related Journals

Popular Journals