Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20634884›Full record

ArticlePloS one2010

Circulating progenitor cell count for cardiovascular risk stratification: a pooled analysis.

Gian Paolo Fadini, Shoichi Maruyama, Takenori Ozaki, Akihiko Taguchi, James Meigs, Stefanie Dimmeler, Andreas M Zeiher, Saula de Kreutzenberg, Angelo Avogaro, Georg Nickenig and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. CD34Heart and vessels · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Sex Differences in Circulating Progenitor Cells.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Regenerative principles enrich cardiac rehabilitation practice.American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation · 2014
    Review
  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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Gian Paolo FadiniDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Padova Medical School, Padova, Italy. gianpaolofadini@hotmail.com
Shoichi Maruyama
Takenori Ozaki
Akihiko Taguchi
James Meigs
Stefanie Dimmeler
Andreas M Zeiher
Saula de Kreutzenberg
Angelo Avogaro
Georg Nickenig
Caroline Schmidt-Lucke
Nikos Werner
University of Padua · ITGoethe University Frankfurt · DENagoya University · JPUniversity Hospital Bonn · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEMassachusetts General Hospital · USNational Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCirculating progenitor cells (CPC) contribute to the homeostasis of the vessel wall, and a reduced CPC count predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We tested the hypothesis that CPC count improves cardiovascular risk stratification and that this is modulated by low-grade inflammation. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe pooled data from 4 longitudinal studies, including a total of 1,057 patients having CPC determined and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) collected. We recorded cardiovascular risk factors and high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) level. Risk estimates were derived from Cox proportional hazard analyses. CPC count and/or hsCRP level were added to a reference model including age, sex, cardiovascular risk factors, prevalent CVD, chronic renal failure (CRF) and medications. The sample was composed of high-risk individuals, as 76.3% had prevalent CVD and 31.6% had CRF. There were 331 (31.3%) incident MACE during an average 1.7+/-1.1 year follow-up time. CPC count was independently associated with incident MACE even after correction for hsCRP. According to C-statistics, models including CPC yielded a non-significant improvement in accuracy of MACE prediction. However, the integrated discrimination improvement index (IDI) showed better performance of models including CPC compared to the reference model and models including hsCRP in identifying MACE. CPC count also yielded significant net reclassification improvements (NRI) for CV death, non-fatal AMI and other CV events. The effect of CPC was independent of hsCRP, but there was a significant more-than-additive interaction between low CPC count and raised hsCRP level in predicting incident MACE. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: In high risk individuals, a reduced CPC count helps identifying more patients at higher risk of MACE over the short term, especially in combination with a raised hsCRP level.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesC-Reactive ProteinFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsStem CellsSurvival AnalysisC-Reactive Protein

Identifiers

PMID20634884
PMCPMC2901328
OpenAlexW2161244480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.