Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 563

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical Effects of β-Adrenergic Blockade in Chronic Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trials

Open access
Lechat, Philippe, Packer, Milton, Chalon, Stephan, Cucherat, Michel, Arab, Tarek, Boissel, Jean-Pierre·1998·Circulation

Abstract

Background —β-Blockers have improved symptoms and reduced the risk of cardiovascular events in studies of patients with heart failure, but it is unclear which end points are most sensitive to the therapeutic effects of these drugs. Methods and Results —We combined the results of all 18 published double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials of β-blockers in heart failure. From this combined database of 3023 patients, we evaluated the strength of evidence supporting an effect of treatment on left ventricular ejection fraction, NYHA functional class, hospitalizations for heart failure, and death. β-Blockers exerted their most persuasive effects on ejection fraction and on the combined risk of death and hospitalization for heart failure. β-Blockade increased the ejection fraction by 29% ( P <10 −9 ) and reduced the combined risk of death or hospitalization for heart failure by 37% ( P <0.001). Both effects remained significant even if >90% of the trials were eliminated from the analysis or if a large number of trials with a neutral result were added to the analysis. In contrast, the effect of β-blockade on NYHA functional class was of borderline significance ( P =0.04) and disappeared with the addition or removal of only 1 moderate-size study. Although β-blockade reduced all-cause mortality by 32% ( P =0.003), this effect was only moderately robust and varied according to the type of β-blocker tested, ie, the reduction of mortality risk was greater for nonselective β-blockers than for β 1 -selective agents (49% versus 18%, P =0.049). However, selective and nonselective β-blockers did not differ in their effects on other measures of clinical efficacy. Conclusions —These analyses indicate that there is persuasive evidence supporting a favorable effect of β-blockade on ejection fraction and the combined risk of death and hospitalization for heart failure. In contrast, the effect of these drugs on other end points requires additional study.

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.98.12.1184

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 563

Metadata

Authors
Lechat, P., Packer, M., Chalon, S., Cucherat, M., Arab, T., & Boissel, J.-P.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1998-09-22
Volume
98
Issue
12
Pages
1184-1191
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2141733118
Cited by
563
References
3
FWCI
40.33
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: Clinical Effects of β-Adrenergic Blockade in Chronic Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.98.12.1184
The paper
Lechat, P., Packer, M., Chalon, S., Cucherat, M., Arab, T., & Boissel, J.-P. (1998). Clinical Effects of β-Adrenergic Blockade in Chronic Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis of Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trials. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.98.12.1184

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.