BACKGROUND: Despite favourable results from past meta-analyses, some recent large trials have not found heart failure (HF) disease management programs to be beneficial. To explore reasons for this, we evaluated evidence from existing meta-analyses. METHODS: Systematic review incorporating meta-review was used. We selected meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials published after 1995 in English that examined the effects of HF disease management programs on key outcomes. Databases searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), DARE, NHS EED, NHS HTA, Ageline, AMED, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL; cited references, experts and existing reviews were also searched. RESULTS: 15 meta-analyses were identified containing a mean of 18.5 randomized trials of HF interventions +/- 10.1 (range: 6 to 36). Overall quality of the meta-analyses was very mixed (Mean AMSTAR Score = 6.4 +/- 1.9; range 2-9). Reporting inadequacies were widespread around populations, intervention components, settings and characteristics, comparison, and comparator groups. Heterogeneity (statistical, clinical, and methodological) was not taken into account sufficiently when drawing conclusions from pooled analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses of heart failure disease management programs have promising findings but often fail to report key characteristics of populations, interventions, and comparisons. Existing reviews are of mixed quality and do not adequately take account of program complexity and heterogeneity.
BACKGROUND: Despite favourable results from past meta-analyses, some recent large trials have not found heart failure (HF) disease management programs to be beneficial. To explore reasons for this, we evaluated evidence from existing meta-analyses. METHODS: Systematic review incorporating meta-review was used. We selected meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials published after 1995 in English that examined the effects of HF disease management programs on key outcomes. Databases searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), DARE, NHS EED, NHS HTA, Ageline, AMED, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL; cited references, experts and existing reviews were also searched. RESULTS: 15 meta-analyses were identified containing a mean of 18.5 randomized trials of HF interventions +/- 10.1 (range: 6 to 36). Overall quality of the meta-analyses was very mixed (Mean AMSTAR Score = 6.4 +/- 1.9; range 2-9). Reporting inadequacies were widespread around populations, intervention components, settings and characteristics, comparison, and comparator groups. Heterogeneity (statistical, clinical, and methodological) was not taken into account sufficiently when drawing conclusions from pooled analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses of heart failure disease management programs have promising findings but often fail to report key characteristics of populations, interventions, and comparisons. Existing reviews are of mixed quality and do not adequately take account of program complexity and heterogeneity.
Authors: Mariell Jessup; William T Abraham; Donald E Casey; Arthur M Feldman; Gary S Francis; Theodore G Ganiats; Marvin A Konstam; Donna M Mancini; Peter S Rahko; Marc A Silver; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Alexander Göhler; James L Januzzi; Stewart S Worrell; Karl Josef Osterziel; G Scott Gazelle; Rainer Dietz; Uwe Siebert Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Brad Smith; Emma Forkner; Barbara Zaslow; Richard A Krasuski; Karl Stajduhar; Michael Kwan; Robert Ellis; Autumn Dawn Galbreath; Gregory L Freeman Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Kenneth Dickstein; Alain Cohen-Solal; Gerasimos Filippatos; John J V McMurray; Piotr Ponikowski; Philip Alexander Poole-Wilson; Anna Strömberg; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Dan Atar; Arno W Hoes; Andre Keren; Alexandre Mebazaa; Markku Nieminen; Silvia Giuliana Priori; Karl Swedberg Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Debra K Moser; Victoria Dickson; Tiny Jaarsma; Christopher Lee; Anna Stromberg; Barbara Riegel Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: Hao Xiong; Hoai Nam Phan; Kathleen Yin; Shlomo Berkovsky; Joshua Jung; Annie Y S Lau Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: R Pekmezaris; R M Schwartz; T N Taylor; P DiMarzio; C N Nouryan; L Murray; G McKenzie; D Ahern; S Castillo; K Pecinka; L Bauer; T Orona; A N Makaryus Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 2.796