The DOI matches its Crossref record; 167 of the 168 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 11 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Clinical decisions are ideally based on evidence generated from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical outcomes, but historically, few clinical guideline recommendations have been based entirely on this type of evidence. Objective: To determine the class and level of evidence (LOE) supporting current major cardiovascular society guideline recommendations, and changes in LOE over time. Data Sources: Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guideline documents (2008-2018), as identified on cardiovascular society websites, and immediate predecessors to these guideline documents (1999-2014), as referenced in current guideline documents. Study Selection: Comprehensive guideline documents including recommendations organized by class and LOE. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The number of recommendations and the distribution of LOE (A [supported by data from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT], B [supported by data from observational studies or a single RCT], and C [supported by expert opinion only]) were determined for each guideline document. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of guideline recommendations supported by evidence from multiple RCTs (LOE A). Results: Across 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines (2930 recommendations; median, 121 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 76-155]), 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A, 1465 (50.0%) as LOE B, and 1217 (41.5%) as LOE C. The median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%). Across 25 current ESC guideline documents (3399 recommendations; median, 130 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 111-154]), 484 recommendations (14.2%) were classified as LOE A, 1053 (31.0%) as LOE B, and 1862 (54.8%) as LOE C. When comparing current guidelines with prior versions, the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not increase in either ACC/AHA (median, 9.0% [current] vs 11.7% [prior]) or ESC guidelines (median, 15.1% [current] vs 17.6% [prior]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines, only a small percentage were supported by evidence from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT. This pattern does not appear to have meaningfully improved from 2008 to 2018.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
43 Own result · 11 Not checked yet · 11 Own interpretation · 9 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“934 (49.6%) as LOE C”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of 1622 class I recommendations, 349 (21.5%) were LOE A.”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ESC guidelines contained 1884 class I and class III recommendations, 402 (21.3%) classified as LOE A”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines (2930 recommendations; median, 121 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 76-155]), 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“Across the 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines, 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“less than 10% of recommendations from current ACC/AHA guidelines”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“1217 (41.5%) as LOE C”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“1217 (41.5%) as LOE C”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of 1272 class I recommendations, 180 (14.2%) were classified as LOE A.”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of these recommendations, 207 (12.9%) were supported by LOE A evidence”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%).”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“of which 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%)were LOE A”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the proportion of recommendations that were LOE B (median, 31.7% [current] vs 33.4% [prior])”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > ESC Guidelines
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“612 (38.2%) by LOE C evidence”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 8
- Probably not a substantial claim. 13
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“or ESC guidelines (median, 15.1% [current] vs 17.6% [prior])”
- Also stated in: § ESC Guidelines · plain
“the median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 15.1% (25th-75th percentiles, 3.7%-26.4%);the median proportion of LOE A recommendations among prior guidelines was 17.6% (25th-75th percentiles, 2.4%-27.6%)”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § ESC Guidelines · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not increase in either ACC/AHA (median, 9.0% [current] vs 11.7% [prior])”
- Also stated in: § Changes From Prior to Current Guidelines ACC/AHA Guidelines · plain
“the median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 9.0% (25th-75th percentiles, 4.8%-15.1%);the median proportion of LOE A recommendations in prior guidelines was 11.7% (25th-75th percentiles, 5.8%-17.5%)”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Changes From Prior to Current Guidelines ACC/AHA Guidelines · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there was wide variety by subject area-in some guideline documents, more than 33% of recommendations were characterized as LOE A, but others had no LOE A recommendations at all.”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the intervening years, some of these steps have been taken, [6][7][8]”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6][7][8]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“recommendations were abstracted by a single reviewer (A.C.F.) and validated by another reviewer (R.D.L).”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Abstraction therefore involved simple reporting of the content of each document and did not require judgment on the part of the abstractors.”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“exclusion of focused updates, which are usually undertaken when new RCT evidence is generated, may lead to underestimation of the proportion of LOE A recommenda-tions”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alternatively, standards for LOE A designation may have changed over time.”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, this limitation should not affect findings regarding changes in LOE over time.”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the evidence supporting major society guideline recommendations is a surrogate for the totality of the evidence in cardiology, rather than a direct measurement.”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this increase in LOE B recommendations could indicate that the proportion of recommendations supported by randomized evidence is increasing”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“At that time, 12% of guideline recommendations were classified as LOE A, including 19% of class I recommendations.”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“in these 6 guideline documents, they found minimal increases in LOE A recommendations compared with LOE B and C.”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lack of RCT evidence supporting most recommendations in the guidelines was compounded by variability among subspecialties within cardiovascular medicine; some subspecialty guidelines contained almost no LOE A recommendations.”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, this review describes only evidence supporting cardiology guidelines, rather than across medical and surgical subspecialties”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The quality of evidence supporting each recommendation was not independently assessed”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Solid RCT evidence delineates treatments and strategies that lead to better patient outcomes, which can then be implemented in clinical practice.106”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [106] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the high global prevalence of cardiovascular disease suggests that efforts to build a higher-quality cardiovascular medicine evidence base might have a large effect on global health.”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
The ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines are the major cardiovascular society guidelines.
“major cardiovascular society guideline recommendations”
The paper relies on this without support.
The LOE categories are comparable across ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines.
“Although the ESC and ACC/AHA guidelines use similar evidence to generate recommendations”
The paper relies on this without support.
The included guideline documents are representative of the evidence base for cardiovascular medicine.
“Only comprehensive guideline documents were included in this systematic review”
The paper relies on this without support.
The websites used to identify guidelines listed all current guidelines as of February 1, 2019.
“Current ACC/AHA guidelines were identified as those posted on the ACC (https://www.acc.org/guidelines#doctype= Guidelines) and ESC (https://www.escardio.org/Guidelines/ Clinical-Practice-Guidelines) websites as of February 1, 2019.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The prior guideline documents identified are the immediate predecessors covering the same topic.
“Current guidelines were also reviewed to identify references to a previous iteration of the same guideline”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“First, clinical trials often lack generalizability 4 to complex patients who often fail to qualify for trials.5,6”
From Answering real-world clinical questions using large language model, retrieval-augmented generation, and agentic systems (2025) · cites this paper as [5]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Abstract
“In a review of the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines from 2009, only 11% of recommendations were classified as LOE A. 5”
§ Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018 > Discussion
“In 2009, Tricoci et al 5 analyzed data from ACC/AHA guidelines published from 1984 to 2008.At that time, 12% of guideline recommendations were classified as LOE A”
Citations
Cites
McDonagh, T. A., Metra, M., Adamo, M., Gardner, R. S., Baumbach, A., Böhm, M., Burri, H., Butler, J., Čelutkienė, J., Chioncel, O. D., et al. (2021) · PubMed · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab670 · Cited by 20,604
2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension
Authors Task Force Members, Mancia, G., Fagard, R., Narkiewicz, K., Redon, J., Zanchetti, A., Böhm, M., Christiaens, T., Cífková, R., Backer, G. D., et al. (2013) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht151 · Cited by 13,739
Self-citation2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure
Yancy, C. W., Jessup, M., Bozkurt, B., Butler, J., Casey, D. E., Drazner, M. H., Fonarow, G. C., Geraci, S. A., Horwich, T., Januzzi, J. L., et al. (2013) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.019 · Cited by 12,536
Ahmed, A., Jorna, T., & Bhandari, S. (2016) · The Nephron journals/Nephron journals · doi:10.1159/000447068 · Cited by 11,782
2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure
Ponikowski, P., Voors, A. A., Anker, S. D., Bueno, H., Cleland, J. G. F., Coats, A. J. S., Falk, V., González-Juanatey, J. R., Harjola, V.-P., Jankowska, E. A., et al. (2016) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw128 · Cited by 11,429
Self-citation2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension
Williams, B., Mancia, G., Spiering, W., Agabiti Rosei, E., Azizi, M., Burnier, M., Clement, D. L., Coca, A., de Simone, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2018) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy339 · Cited by 10,286
Self-citationIbanez, B., James, S., Agewall, S., Antunes, M. J., Bucciarelli-Ducci, C., Bueno, H., Caforio, A. L. P., Crea, F., Goudevenos, J. A., Halvorsen, S., et al. (2018) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393 · Cited by 9,728
Self-citationEuropean Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012)
Authors/Task Force Members:, Perk, J., De Backer, G., Gohlke, H., Graham, I., Reiner, Ž., Verschuren, M., Albus, C., Benlian, P., Boysen, G., et al. (2012) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs092 · Cited by 8,490
Self-citationACC/AHA 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease
Bonow, R. O., Carabello, B. A., Chatterjee, K., de Leon, A. C., Faxon, D. P., Freed, M. D., Gaasch, W. H., Lytle, B. W., Nishimura, R. A., O’Gara, P. T., et al. (2006) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.106.176857 · Cited by 8,487
Antman, E. M., Anbe, D. T., Armstrong, P. W., Bates, E., Green, L. A., Hand, M. M., Hochman, J. S., Krumholz, H. M., Kushner, F. G., Lamas, G. A., et al. (2004) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000134791.68010.fa · Cited by 8,348
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hoenders, R. H. J., Ghelman, R., Portella, C. F. S., Simmons, S., Locke, A., Cramer, H., Gallego-Pérez, D. F., & Jong, M. C. (2024) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1395698 · Cited by 175
Lópes, R. D., Hong, H., Harskamp, R. E., Bhatt, D. L., Mehran, R., Cannon, C. P., Granger, C. B., Verheugt, F. W. A., Li, J., ten Berg, J. M., et al. (2020) · JAMA Cardiology · doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2019.6175 · Cited by 132
Self-citationSodium Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibition for Acute Myocardial Infarction
Udell, J. A., Jones, W. S., Petrie, M. C., Harrington, J., Anker, S. D., Bhatt, D. L., Hernandez, A. F., & Butler, J. (2022) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.03.353 · Cited by 110
Lunny, C., Ramasubbu, C., Puil, L. J., Liu, T. W. B., Gerrish, S., Salzwedel, D. M., Mintzes, B. J., & Wright, J. M. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250356 · Cited by 88
The Integration of Clinical Trials With the Practice of Medicine
Angus, D. C., Huang, A. J., Lewis, R. J., Abernethy, A. P., Califf, R. M., Landray, M., KASS, N. E., Bibbins-Domingo, K. B., Abbasi, A. B., Abebe, K. Z., et al. (2024) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2024.4088 · Cited by 91
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Fanaroff, A. C., Califf, R. M., Windecker, S., Smith, S. C., & Lopes, R. D.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- University of Bern (CH)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Division of Cardiology and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2019-03-19
- Volume
- 321
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1069
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- PMC
- PMC6439920
- OpenAlex
- W2921176698
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 168
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 22
- FWCI
- 5.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- American Heart Association (17FTF33661087)
- Amgen
- Bristol-Myers Squibb
- Eli Lilly and Company
- Pfizer
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Sanofi
- Biogen
- Edwards Lifesciences
- Boston Scientific Corporation
- Cytokinetics
- Genentech
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- level of evidence, cardiovascular guidelines, ACC/AHA guidelines, ESC guidelines, randomized controlled trials, guideline recommendations, expert opinion, guideline revision, cardiovascular care
- MeSH terms
- American Heart Association, Cardiology, Cardiovascular Diseases, Europe, Societies, Medical, United States, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Observational Studies as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
