Key result
Review highlights clinician-scientist collaboration in chronic HF translational research to improve evidence generalizability.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights the need for bedside-to-bench translational research to address the diverse cohort of heart failure patients who do not meet standard clinical trial enrollment criteria.
Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a chronic condition usually without cure. Significant developments, particularly those addressing pathophysiology, mainly started at the bench. This approach has seen many clinical observations initially explored at the bench, subsequently being trialed at the bedside, and eventually translated into clinical practice. This evidence, however, has several limitations, importantly the generalizability or external validity. We now acknowledge that clinical management of CHF is more complicated than merely translating bench-to-bedside evidence in a linear fashion. This review aims to help explore this evolving area from an Australian perspective. We describe the continuation of research once core evidence is established and describe how clinician-scientist collaboration with a bedside-to-bench view can help enhance evidence translation and generalizability. We describe why an extension of the available evidence or generating new evidence is occasionally needed to address the increasingly diverse cohort of patients. Finally, we explore some of the tools used by basic scientists and clinicians to develop evidence and describe the ones we feel may be most beneficial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iyngkaran et al. (2015) conducted a review in Congestive heart failure (CHF). This review explores bedside-to-bench translational research in chronic heart failure, emphasizing clinician-scientist collaboration to enhance evidence generalizability for diverse patient cohorts.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: