Evaluation of myocardial viability in chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Surgical Management of Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Patients with Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Is It Time to Reconsider Revascularization Surgery?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024
   Review
2. Nuclear cardiology for a cardiothoracic surgeon.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2022
   Review
3. Positron emission tomography for the assessment of myocardial viability: an evidence-based analysis.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2005
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Prognostic value of nitrate enhanced Tc99m MIBI SPECT study in detecting viable myocardium in patients with coronary artery disease.2003

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as