Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 295

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The relationship between left ventricular systolic function and congestive heart failure diagnosed by clinical criteria.

Open access
Marantz, P R, Tobin, J N, Wassertheil-Smoller, S, Steingart, R M, Wexler, J P, Budner, N, Lense, L, Wachspress, J·1988·Circulation

Abstract

There is no uniformly accepted clinical definition for congestive heart failure (CHF), although criteria have been published by various groups. There is also no reference standard for CHF, although left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) gives a quantitative assessment of systolic function and is useful in predicting prognosis. To determine the relationship between LVEF and clinically diagnosed CHF, we compared resting LVEF determined by radionuclide ventriculography with diagnosis of CHF by clinical criteria in 407 patients, based on clinical data collected by a cardiology fellow. Of 153 patients with a low LVEF (less than or equal to 0.40), 30 (20%) met none of the criteria for CHF. Conversely, of 204 patients with normal LVEF (greater than or equal to 0.50), 105 (51%) met at least one of the criteria. We conclude that different criteria for CHF will have varying utility depending on the population being examined, and that a combination of clinical features and an objective measure of cardiac performance is needed to diagnose CHF.

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 · 10.1161/01.cir.77.3.607

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 295

Metadata

Authors
Marantz, P. R., Tobin, J. N., Wassertheil-Smoller, S., Steingart, R. M., Wexler, J. P., Budner, N., Lense, L., & Wachspress, J.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1988-03
Volume
77
Issue
3
Pages
607-612
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2019694810
Cited by
295
References
1
FWCI
5.15
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

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.