MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411427951 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-096538

Benefits of heart valve clinics for patients: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4411427951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zechao Ran, Yuqiang Wang, Tingqian Cao, Siyu He, Xiaoting Li, Yingqiang Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisMEDLINEData extractionSystematic reviewCohort studyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCohortEmergency medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of heart valve clinics (HVCs) versus standard of care (SOC) on disease detection, timing of intervention and clinical outcomes in patients with valvular heart disease (VHD). DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024518787). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane Library from inception to 1 May 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or cohort studies comparing patients managed in HVCs with those receiving SOC, and reporting on outcomes such as mortality, cardiac events, time to symptom reporting or symptom severity. Studies were excluded if they lacked detailed HVC protocols, single-arm designs or were published as abstracts only. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved by a senior adjudicator. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity among studies. RESULTS: Three high-quality prospective cohort studies (N=1082) were included. Two studies reported mortality and cardiac events: one, a before-and-after controlled trial (n=382), recorded 11 deaths in the HVC group; the other reported 4 deaths in the HVC group (n=156) versus 17 deaths in the SOC group (n=156) (p<0.05). Additionally, two studies found that HVCs significantly reduced the interval between symptom onset and reporting (p<0.05), as well as the proportion of patients presenting with severe symptoms (defined as New York Heart Association (NYHA) class or Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class ≥III). CONCLUSION: HVCs facilitate stratified and precise management of the whole-life cycle of patients with VHD, enhancing early detection and referral, and leading to reduced mortality and major cardiac events compared with SOC.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.413 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→