Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17115219›Full record

ReviewMedical & biological engineering & computing2007

Computer modelling of the sinoatrial node.

Ronald Wilders

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Cardiac automaticity: basic concepts and clinical observations.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2018
    Review
  10. A Singular Role of IStem cell reviews and reports · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ronald WildersDepartment of Physiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 15, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. r.wilders@amc.uva.nl
University of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decades patch-clamp experiments have provided us with detailed information on the different types of ion channels that are present in the cardiac cell membrane. Sophisticated cardiac cell models based on these data can help us understand how the different types of ion channels act together to produce the cardiac action potential. In the field of biological pacemaker engineering, such models provide important instruments for the assessment of the functional implications of changes in density of specific ion channels aimed at producing stable pacemaker activity. In this review, an overview is given of the progress made in cardiac cell modelling, with particular emphasis on the development of sinoatrial (SA) nodal cell models. Also, attention is given to the increasing number of publicly available tools for non-experts in computer modelling to run cardiac cell models.

Indexed as

Models, CardiovascularAction PotentialsAnimalsComputer SimulationHumansInternetIon ChannelsMyocytes, CardiacSinoatrial NodeSoftwareIon Channels

Identifiers

PMID17115219
OpenAlexW2117551402

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.