ReviewCardiology in review
The existence of myocardial repair: mechanistic insights and enhancements.
Review in Cardiology in review. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regulation of cardiomyocyte fate plasticity: a key strategy for cardiac regeneration.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2021Review
- Embryonic stem cell-derived exosomes promote endogenous repair mechanisms and enhance cardiac function following myocardial infarction.Circulation research · 2015Article
- Review
- Cardiac stem cells: biology and clinical applications.Antioxidants & redox signaling · 2014Review
- Translating stem cell research to cardiac disease therapies: pitfalls and prospects for improvement.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2014Review
- An update on stem cell therapies for acute coronary syndrome.Current cardiology reports · 2014Review
- Multipotent (adult) and pluripotent stem cells for heart regeneration: what are the pros and cons?Stem cell research & therapy · 2013Review
- Cell therapy in Brazil: time for reflection.Revista brasileira de hematologia e hemoterapia · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The lack of myocardial repair after myocardial infarction and the heart failure that eventually ensues was thought of as proof that myocardial cell regeneration and myocardial repair mechanisms do not exist. Recently, growing experimental and clinical evidence has proven this concept wrong. Cardiac stem cells and endogenous myocardial repair mechanisms do exist; however, they do not produce significant myocardial repair. Similarly, the preliminary results of stem cell therapy for myocardial repair have shown early promise but modest results. Preclinical studies are the key to understanding stem cell senescence and lack of cellular contact and vasculature in the infarcted region. Additional laboratory studies are sure to unlock the therapeutic mechanisms that will be required for significant myocardial repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.