Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24776704›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2014

A role for pericytes in coronary no-reflow.

Fergus M O'Farrell, David Attwell

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 89 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. In vivo methods for imaging blood-brain barrier function and dysfunction.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    Review
  14. "No-Reflow" Phenomenon: A Contemporary Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fergus M O'FarrellDepartment of Neuroscience, Physiology & Pharmacology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
David AttwellDepartment of Neuroscience, Physiology & Pharmacology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
University College London · GB

Funding

Medical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite efforts to restore tissue perfusion after myocardial infarction, coronary no-reflow--a failure to achieve adequate reperfusion of the cardiac microcirculation--is a common complication, which correlates with an increased incidence of death and disability. The treatment of ischaemic stroke is also plagued by no-reflow and, in the brain, a major cause of this phenomenon has been shown to be contractile microvascular pericytes irreversibly constricting capillaries and dying. We propose that cardiac pericytes, which are the second most-common cell type in the heart, impede reperfusion of coronary capillaries in a similar fashion to those in the brain after a stroke. Pericyte constriction might contribute to morbidity in patients by causing microvascular obstruction, even after successful treatment of coronary artery block. The similarity of the no-reflow phenomenon in the brain and in the heart suggests that cardiac pericytes are a novel therapeutic target for coronary no-reflow after myocardial infarction.

Indexed as

Coronary CirculationHumansMicrocirculationMyocardial InfarctionPericytes

Identifiers

PMID24776704
OpenAlexW2084464242

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.