Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Clinical Research in Cardiology · August 24, 2026
Early or partial results. Treat as a signal, not a conclusion.
This is a descriptive analysis quantifying the proportion of cardiovascular literature published between consecutive ESC guideline editions that is subsequently cited in the later edition. The study finds that only a mean of 2.2% of inter-guideline publications are directly cited, with clinical trials cited approximately fivefold more frequently than non-trial publications. The work is methodologically sound but addresses a process measure rather than clinical utility or outcomes.
Descriptive cross-sectional analysis of citation patterns. Cardiovascular research articles published between consecutive ESC guideline editions; eight defined clinical topics. Compared with: Clinical trial publications versus non-clinical trial publications.
Mean of 2.2% (SD = 2.0) of inter-guideline publications were directly cited in the successive ESC guideline across eight topics Clinical trials were cited more frequently than non-clinical trial publications: 8.5% (SD = 6.8) vs 2.0% (SD = 2.0) Odds of citation for clinical trials were roughly fivefold higher than non-trial publications (OR 5.45, 95% CI 4.87–6.10) in topic-adjusted logistic regression
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
This analysis demonstrates that ESC guidelines incorporate only a small fraction of the contemporary cardiovascular literature, with clinical trials receiving preferential citation. Clinicians and researchers should be aware that guideline recommendations may not reflect the breadth of published evidence, though the selection towards trial evidence may reflect prioritization of higher-level study designs.
A descriptive analysis of citation patterns in ESC guidelines across eight topics, using observational methodology to quantify literature incorporation—methodologically sound but addressing a process metric rather than a clinical outcome, and limited to one guideline-issuing body.
As stated by the source record.
Quoted from the source exactly as published.
This analysis demonstrates that ESC guidelines incorporate only a small fraction of the contemporary cardiovascular literature, with clinical trials receiving preferential citation. Clinicians and researchers should be aware that guideline recommendations may not reflect the breadth of published evidence, though the selection towards trial evidence may reflect prioritization of higher-level study designs.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
BACKGROUND: The number of cardiovascular research articles is growing rapidly, but the subsequent incorporation into newer guidelines remains uncertain. We aimed to quantify the proportion of topic-relevant literature published between consecutive European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline editions that was cited in the later edition. METHODS: Using PubMed Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) searches and OpenAlex citation graphs, we identified all publications published between two ESC guideline editions across eight topics. We quantified the proportion of inter-guideline publications that were cited in the subsequent guideline. RESULTS: Across the eight topics, a mean of 2.2% (SD = 2.0) of inter-guideline publications were directly cited in the successive guideline. Clinical trials were more frequently cited than non-clinical trial publications (8.5% [SD = 6.8] vs 2.0% [SD = 2.0]) in a topic-adjusted logistic regression; the odds were roughly fivefold higher (OR 5.45, 95% CI 4.87-6.10). CONCLUSIONS: ESC guidelines cite a small proportion of the cardiovascular literature published since their preceding edition, drawing disproportionately on clinical trials.
Taken from the source record, never inferred. Follow any of these and new work involving them reaches your briefing.