Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2025

Author Spotlight: Workflow for Integrating POCUS Data into EHR for Managing Heart Failure Patients
Published on: July 12, 2024
A systematic review of multimorbidity clusters in heart failure: Effects of methodologies
Palvinder Kaur1, Joey Ha2, Natalie Raye3
1Health Services and Outcomes Research, National Healthcare Group, Singapore; Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore.
Background:
Clustering algorithms can identify distinct heart failure (HF) subgroups. The choice of algorithms, modelling process, and input variables can impact clustering outcomes. Therefore, we reviewed analytical methods and variables used in studies that performed clustering in patients with HF.
Methods:
We systematically searched CINAHL, COCHRANE, EMBASE, OVID Medline, and Web of Science for eligible articles between inception and April 2023. We included primary studies that identified distinct HF multimorbid subgroups and were appraised for risk-of-bias and against methodological recommendations for cluster analysis. A narrative synthesis was performed.
Results:
Our analysis included 43 studies, mostly following a cohort design (n = 34, 79 %) and conducted primarily in Europe (n = 15, 35 %) and North America (n = 13, 30 %). Model-based (n = 22, 48 %), centre-based (n = 10, 22 %), and hierarchical class clustering (n = 9, 20 %) were the most frequently employed algorithms, identifying a range of 2-10 multimorbid clusters. Most studies used a combination of multi-modal parameters (i.e., socio-demographics, biochemistry, clinical characteristics, comorbidities and risk factors, cardiac imaging, and biomarkers) (n = 27, 63 %), followed by disease-based parameters (i.e., comorbidities and risk factors) (n = 11, 26 %) as input variables for clustering. Notably, variables used for clustering reflected cardiovascular and metabolic conditions. The phenogroups identified differed by input variables and algorithms used for clustering. We found substantial quality gaps in developing clustering models, variable selection, reporting of modelling processes, and model validation.
Conclusion:
Cluster analysis results differed based on the clustering algorithms used and input variables. This review found substantial gaps in analysis quality and reporting. Implementing a methodological framework to develop, validate, and report clustering analysis can improve the clinical utility and reproducibility of clustering outcomes.
More Related Videos
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
14:35Post-Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure in Closed-chest Coronary Occlusion/Reperfusion Model in Göttingen Minipigs and Landrace Pigs
Published on: April 17, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Pathophysiology of Heart Failure
Heart Failure Drugs: Inhibitors of Renin-Angiotensin System
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
Rheumatic Heart Disease III: Medical Management
Mitral Regurgitation IV: Nursing Management
Rheumatic Heart Disease II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies