↓ Skip to main content

B-type natriuretic peptide-guided therapy for heart failure (HF): a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) and aggregate data

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
B-type natriuretic peptide-guided therapy for heart failure (HF): a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) and aggregate data
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0776-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Pufulete, Rachel Maishman, Lucy Dabner, Julian P. T. Higgins, Chris A. Rogers, Mark Dayer, John MacLeod, Sarah Purdy, William Hollingworth, Morten Schou, Manuel Anguita-Sanchez, Patric Karlström, Michael Kleiner Shochat, Theresa McDonagh, Angus K. Nightingale, Barnaby C. Reeves

Abstract

We estimated the effectiveness of serial B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) blood testing to guide up-titration of medication compared with symptom-guided up-titration of medication in patients with heart failure (HF). Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched: MEDLINE (Ovid) 1950 to 9/06/2016; Embase (Ovid), 1980 to 2016 week 23; the Cochrane Library; ISI Web of Science (Citations Index and Conference Proceedings). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were death related to HF, cardiovascular death, all-cause hospital admission, hospital admission for HF, adverse events, and quality of life. IPD were sought from all RCTs identified. Random-effects meta-analyses (two-stage) were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs) across RCTs, including HR estimates from published reports of studies that did not provide IPD. We estimated treatment-by-covariate interactions for age, gender, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, HF type; diabetes status and baseline BNP subgroups. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using random-effects odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. We identified 14 eligible RCTs, five providing IPD. BNP-guided therapy reduced the hazard of hospital admission for HF by 19% (13 RCTs, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98) but not all-cause mortality (13 RCTs; HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.01) or cardiovascular mortality (5 RCTs; OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.16). For all-cause mortality, there was a significant interaction between treatment strategy and age (p = 0.034, 11 RCTs; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.92, patients < 75 years old and HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.37, patients ≥ 75 years old); ejection fraction (p = 0.026, 11 RCTs; HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); and HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.83-2.11, patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)). Adverse events were significantly more frequent with BNP-guided therapy vs. symptom-guided therapy (5 RCTs; OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.60). BNP-guided therapy did not reduce mortality but reduced HF hospitalisation. The overall quality of the evidence varied from low to very low. The relevance of these findings to unselected patients, particularly those managed by community generalists, are unclear. PROSPERO CRD42013005335.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 23 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 31 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,663,023
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#473
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,561
of 330,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#17
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,742 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.