Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24036904›Full record

ArticleDer Radiologe2013

[Imaging following valve replacement].

D Dabir, E Arroyo-Ucar, E A Ucar, E Nagel

Erratum issuedAbstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Radiologe, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
    Ucar, E A [corrected to Arroyo-Ucar, E]
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

D DabirDepartment of Cardiovascular Imaging, The Ranyne Institute, St. Thomas Hospital, King's College London , SE1 7EH, London, UK.
E Arroyo-Ucar
E A Ucar
E Nagel
St Thomas' Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients who undergo heart valve replacement require lifelong cardiac follow-up care. Although the primary pathology of the patient is treated by valve replacement, the risk of postoperative complications and structural failure of the implanted device requires regular check-ups where imaging plays an important role. Immediately after surgery reference values regarding prosthetic and cardiac function for further check-ups are obtained. Transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography are the imaging modalities of choice for standard examination and follow-up due to their availability and low costs. However, when it comes to identification of complications they are often insufficient. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) play an increasingly important role as complementary modalities for the detection and monitoring of complications after valve replacement. The following article gives an overview of the current non-invasive examination methods and the use in the investigation of postoperative complications.

Indexed as

Heart Valve DiseasesHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingProsthesis FailureProsthesis-Related InfectionsTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24036904
OpenAlexW115120011

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.