Full Picture

Article analysis:

The article is overall well written and provides a comprehensive overview of the prognostic value of demographic, clinical, biochemical, and imaging findings in patients with HCM. The authors conducted a thorough search of relevant studies published from 1955 to November 2020 and included 112 studies with 58,732 HCM patients in their analysis. The authors also performed a pairwise meta-analysis obtaining the pooled estimate separately for the association between baseline variables and study endpoints as well as a random-effects network meta-analysis to comparatively assess the prognostic value of outcome associates.

The article does not appear to have any major biases or one-sided reporting; however there are some points that could be further explored or discussed more thoroughly. For example, while the authors mention that LGE showed the highest prognostic value for all endpoints and was superior to all other associates except New York Heart Association functional class >class II, they do not discuss why this is so or what implications this has for patient care. Additionally, while they mention that a multiparametric imaging-based model was superior in predicting the composite endpoint compared to a prespecified model based on conventional risk factors, they do not provide any evidence or data to support this claim.

In conclusion, this article provides an informative overview of the prognostic value of demographic, clinical, biochemical, and imaging findings in patients with HCM; however it could benefit from further exploration into certain topics such as why LGE showed higher prognostic value than other associates or providing evidence for its claims about multiparametric imaging models being superior predictors of composite endpoints compared to conventional risk factors models.