Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24158521›Full record

ReviewIEEE reviews in biomedical engineering2014

A century of optocardiography.

Bas J Boukens, Igor R Efimov

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Guidelines for assessment of cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias in small animals.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Stop the beat to see the rhythm: excitation-contraction uncoupling in cardiac research.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. MulticellularFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors.

Bas J Boukens
Igor R Efimov

Funding

Low Energy DefibrillationR01HL115415 · NHLBI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EFIMOV, IGOR R · 2013 to 2016
$2.1M
ARRHYTHMOGENIC REMODELING IN HUMAN HEART FAILURER01HL114395 · NHLBI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EFIMOV, IGOR R · 2012 to 2015
$2.1M
OPTO-ELECTRIC MAPPING OF ACTION POTENTIALSR21HL112278 · NHLBI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EFIMOV, IGOR R · 2012 to 2013
$428k
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL114395NHLBI NIH HHS R01-HL114395NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL115415NHLBI NIH HHS R01-HL115415NHLBI NIH HHS R21 HL112278NHLBI NIH HHS R21-HL112278
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the past decade, optical mapping provided crucial mechanistic insight into electromechanical function and the mechanism of ventricular fibrillation. Therefore, to date, optical mapping dominates experimental cardiac electrophysiology. The first cardiac measurements involving optics were done in the early 1900s using the fast cinematograph that later evolved into methods for high-resolution activation and repolarization mapping and stimulation of specific cardiac cell types. The field of "optocardiography," therefore, emerged as the use of light for recording or interfering with cardiac physiology. In this review, we discuss how optocardiography developed into the dominant research technique in experimental cardiology. Furthermore, we envision how optocardiographic methods can be used in clinical cardiology.

Indexed as

ElectrocardiographyHeartOptical ImagingOptogeneticsVoltage-Sensitive Dye ImagingAnimalsAnuraHumansMice

Identifiers

PMID24158521
PMCPMC4521770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.