Systolic and diastolic heart failure in the community.

By F. Bursi, S. Weston, M. Redfield, Steven Jacobsen, Serguei V. S. Pakhomov, V. Nkomo, Ryan A. Meverden, Véronique L. Roger. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 2006

927 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Epidemiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (2017, neutral): “Bursi et al.(26) 2003–2005 Olmsted County, Minnesota, USA ≥50 55 (308/556)”
Epidemiology and clinical course of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (2011, background): “Bursi et al.(23) Rochester Epidemiology Project, Olmsted County MN, USA 308 77 57 BMI 1⁄4 29.”
Phenomapping for Novel Classification of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (2014, neutral): “Grade III (severe) diastolic dysfunction 23 (18) 31 (26) 83 (56)”
Epidemiology of Heart Failure (2013, methodology): “Doppler measurements enable classifying diastolic function into mutually exclusive categories, indicative of progressive elevation of filling pressures.(30) Several algorithms have been proposed, including the algorithm proposed by the American Society of Echocardiography.”
2007 Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) (2007, background): “All these measurements are of great current interest because it is now recognized that a considerable proportion (about 50%) of heart failure may be explained by ‘diastolic dysfunction’, with no or little impairment of systolic function, and that so called ‘diastolic heart failure’ is an ominous con”