Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24694103›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reviews2014

CTO pathophysiology: how does this affect management?

John Irving

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

1 author.

John IrvingNinewells Hospital, Dundee UK. johnirving@nhs.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledChronic total occlusion (CTO) pathophysiology has been described in a few, small studies using post mortem histology, and more recently, in vivo intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to analyse the constituents of occluded segments. Recent improvements in equipment and techniques have revealed new insights into physical characteristics of occluded coronaries, which in turn enable predictable procedural success. The purpose of this review is to consider the published evidence describing CTO pathophysiology from the perspective of the hybrid algorithm approach to CTO PCI.

methodsLiterature searches using "Chronic Occlusion", "angioplasty", and" pathology" as keywords. Further searches on "coronary" "collateral", "Viability". Bibliographies were scrutinised for further key publications in an iterative process. Papers describing animal models were excluded.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsChronic DiseaseCoronary AngiographyCoronary OcclusionHumansMyocardial RevascularizationTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24694103
PMCPMC4021289

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.