Tricuspid regurgitation management: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a highly prevalent condition and an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes. Multiple clinical guidelines exist for the diagnosis and management of TR, but the recommendations may sometimes vary. We systematically reviewed high-quality guidelines with a specific focus on areas of agreement, disagreement, and gaps in evidence. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (1 January 2011 to 30 August 2021), the Guidelines International Network International, Guideline Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, Google Scholar, and websites of relevant organizations for contemporary guidelines that were rigorously developed (as assessed by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool). Three guidelines were finally retained. There was consensus on a TR grading system, recognition of isolated functional TR associated with atrial fibrillation, and indications for valve surgery in symptomatic vs. asymptomatic patients, primary vs. secondary TR, and isolated TR forms. Discrepancies exist in the role of biomarkers, complementary multimodality imaging, exercise echocardiography, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing for risk stratification and clinical decision-making of progressive TR and asymptomatic severe TR, management of atrial functional TR, and choice of transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI). Risk-based thresholds for quantitative TR grading, robust risk score models for TR surgery, surveillance intervals, population-based screening programmes, TTVI indications, and consensus on endpoint definitions are lacking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".