Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16932922›Full record

ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2006

How valid are animal models to evaluate treatments for pulmonary hypertension?

Maria E Campian, Maxim Hardziyenka, Martin C Michel, Hanno L Tan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Targeted delivery ofActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria E CampianDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Maxim Hardziyenka
Martin C Michel
Hanno L Tan
University of Amsterdam · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various animal models of pulmonary hypertension (PH) exist, among which injection of monocrotaline (MCT) and exposure to hypoxia are used most frequently. These animal models have not only been used to characterize the pathophysiology of PH and its sequelae such as right ventricular hypertrophy and failure, but also to test novel therapeutic strategies. This manuscript summarizes the available treatment studies in animal models of PH, and compares the findings to those obtained in patients with PH. The analysis shows that all approaches which have proven successful in patients, most notably prostacyclin and its analogs and endothelin receptor antagonists, are also effective in various animal models. However, the opposite it not always true. Therefore, promising results in animals have to be interpreted carefully until confirmed in clinical studies.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedDisease Models, AnimalDuctus ArteriosusEmbolismHumansHypertension, PulmonaryHypoxiaMonocrotalinePoisonsMonocrotalinePoisons

Identifiers

PMID16932922
OpenAlexW1964307226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.