Question · asked by 1 review
Usual care with ivabradine vs Placebo, no intervention or usual care (with or without placebo): Quality of life
- Population
- adults (≥ 18 years of age) with a diagnosis of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)
- Intervention
- Usual care with ivabradine
- Comparison
- Placebo, no intervention or usual care (with or without placebo)
- Outcome
- Quality of life
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 100%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Usual care with ivabradine vs placebo, usual care, or no treatment Quality of life · adults (≥ 18 years of age) with a diagnosis of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2102 participants | Low |
Usual care with ivabradine vs placebo, usual care, or no treatment Quality of life · adults (≥ 18 years of age) with a diagnosis of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ivabradine as adjuvant treatment for chronic heart failure 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Usual care with ivabradine vs Placebo, no intervention or usual care (with or without placebo) · patients with chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.