Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21173794›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2011

Epidemiology of thoracic aortic dissection.

Scott A LeMaire, Ludivine Russell

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 156 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
156citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

156 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 352 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

96 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Scott A LeMaireThe Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030, USA. slemaire@bcm.edu
Ludivine Russell
Baylor College of Medicine · US

Funding

The Training CoreP50HL083794 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MILEWICZ, DIANNA M · 2006 to 2010
$11.3M
NHLBI NIH HHS P50 HL083794
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) is estimated to occur at a rate of 3-4 cases per 100,000 persons per year and is associated with a high mortality. Reported rates are probably underestimates of the true incidence of TAD because of difficulties in diagnosis. The incidence of TAD appears to have been increasing over time. TAD is most common in men and older individuals. Aortic dilatation is a well-established risk factor for TAD but is not a prerequisite; most ascending aortic dissections occur when aortic diameter is <5.5 cm. Although atherosclerosis and typical cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and smoking, are associated with TAD, evidence supporting their direct causal role is lacking. Notably, diabetes mellitus is remarkably uncommon in patients with TAD. Other risk factors for TAD include inflammatory diseases, iatrogenic aortic injury, and drug use. Congenital cardiovascular defects, such as bicuspid aortic valve, and certain genetic syndromes, such as Marfan syndrome, are the genetic factors most commonly associated with TAD. Specific nonsyndromic genetic mutations in families and single nucleotide polymorphisms have also been identified as possible risk factors for TAD.

Indexed as

Aortic Aneurysm, ThoracicAortic DissectionFemaleHumansMaleRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID21173794
OpenAlexW1999107835

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.