Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 243

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mode of Action and Effects of Standardized Collaborative Disease Management on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure: The Interdisciplinary Network for Heart Failure (INH) Study

Angermann, Christiane E., Störk, Stefan, Gelbrich, Götz, Faller, Hermann, Jahns, Roland, Frantz, Stefan, Loeffler, Markus, Ertl, Georg·2012·Circulation: Heart Failure

Abstract

Background—: Trials investigating efficacy of disease management programs (DMP) in heart failure reported contradictory results. Features rendering specific interventions successful are often ill defined. We evaluated the mode of action and effects of a nurse-coordinated DMP (HeartNetCare-HF, HNC). Methods and Results—: Patients hospitalized for systolic heart failure were randomly assigned to HNC or usual care (UC). Besides telephone-based monitoring and education, HNC addressed individual problems raised by patients, pursued networking of health care providers and provided training for caregivers. End points were time to death or rehospitalization (combined primary), heart failure symptoms, and quality of life (SF-36). Of 1007 consecutive patients, 715 were randomly assigned (HNC: n=352; UC: n=363; age, 69±12 years; 29% female; 40% New York Heart Association class III-IV). Within 180 days, 130 HNC and 137 UC patients reached the primary end point (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.81–1.30; P =0.89), since more HNC patients were readmitted. Overall, 32 HNC and 52 UC patients died (1 UC patient and 4 HNC patients after dropout); thus, uncensored hazard ratio was 0.62 (0.40–0.96; P =0.03). HNC patients improved more regarding New York Heart Association class ( P =0.05), physical functioning ( P =0.03), and physical health component ( P =0.03). Except for HNC, health care utilization was comparable between groups. However, HNC patients requested counseling for noncardiac problems even more frequently than for cardiovascular or heart-failure–related issues. Conclusions—: The primary end point of this study was neutral. However, mortality risk and surrogates of well-being improved significantly. Quantitative assessment of patient requirements suggested that besides (tele)monitoring individualized care considering also noncardiac problems should be integrated in efforts to achieve more sustainable improvement in heart failure outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN23325295.

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/circheartfailure.111.962969

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Cited by

See all 243

Metadata

Authors
Angermann, C. E., Störk, S., Gelbrich, G., Faller, H., Jahns, R., Frantz, S., Loeffler, M., & Ertl, G.
Venue
Circulation: Heart Failure
Published
2012-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
25-35
ISSN
  • 1941-3289 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-3297
OpenAlex
W2133731233
Cited by
243
References
6
FWCI
8.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Mode of Action and Effects of Standardized Collaborative Disease Management on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure: The Interdisciplinary Network for Heart Failure (INH) Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circheartfailure.111.962969
The paper
Angermann, C. E., Störk, S., Gelbrich, G., Faller, H., Jahns, R., Frantz, S., Loeffler, M., & Ertl, G. (2012). Mode of Action and Effects of Standardized Collaborative Disease Management on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure: The Interdisciplinary Network for Heart Failure (INH) Study. Circulation: Heart Failure. https://doi.org/10.1161/circheartfailure.111.962969

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.