Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,544

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

2016 ESC Position Paper on cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity developed under the auspices of the ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines: The Task Force for cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

Open access
Zamorano, Jose Luis, Lancellotti, Patrizio, Rodriguez Muñoz, Daniel, Aboyans, Victor, Asteggiano, Riccardo, Galderisi, Maurizio, Habib, Gilbert, Lenihan, Daniel J., Lip, Gregory Y. H., Lyon, Alexander R., Lopez Fernandez, Teresa, Mohty, Dania, Piepoli, Massimo F., Tamargo, Juan, Torbicki, Adam, Suter, Thomas M.·2016·European Heart Journal

Abstract

... ... Guidelines and position papers written under the auspices of the ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) summarize and evaluate all available evidence on a particular issue at the time of the writing process, with the aim of assisting health professionals in selecting the best management strategies for an individual patient with a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. CPG Guidelines and position papers should help health professionals to make decisions in their daily practice. However, the final decisions concerning an individual patient must be made by the responsible health professional(s) in consultation with the patient and caregiver as appropriate. Members of this Task Force were selected by the ESC to represent professionals involved with the medical care of patients with this pathology. Selected experts in the field undertook a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management (including diagnosis, treatment, prevention and rehabilitation) of a given condition according to CPG policy. A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures was performed, including assessment of the risk–benefit ratio. Estimates of expected health outcomes for larger populations were included, where data exist.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw211

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Cited by

See all 2,544

Metadata

Authors
Zamorano, J. L., Lancellotti, P., Rodriguez Muñoz, D., Aboyans, V., Asteggiano, R., Galderisi, M., Habib, G., Lenihan, D. J., Lip, G. Y. H., Lyon, A. R., Lopez Fernandez, T., Mohty, D., Piepoli, M. F., Tamargo, J., Torbicki, A., & Suter, T. M.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2016-08-26
Volume
37
Issue
36
Pages
2768-2801
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2800400752
Cited by
2,544
References
10
FWCI
144.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 2016 ESC Position Paper on cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity developed under the auspices of the ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines: The Task Force for cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw211
The paper
Zamorano, J. L., Lancellotti, P., Rodriguez Muñoz, D., Aboyans, V., Asteggiano, R., Galderisi, M., Habib, G., Lenihan, D. J., Lip, G. Y. H., Lyon, A. R., Lopez Fernandez, T., Mohty, D., Piepoli, M. F., Tamargo, J., Torbicki, A., & Suter, T. M. (2016). 2016 ESC Position Paper on cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity developed under the auspices of the ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines: The Task Force for cancer treatments and cardiovascular toxicity of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehw211

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.