Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25258658›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiovascular imaging reports2014

Myocardial Tissue Characterization: Histological and Pathophysiological Correlation.

T A Treibel, S K White, J C Moon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiovascular imaging reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Clinical implications of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging fibrosis.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Early-stage heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the pig: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2016
    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

3 authors.

T A TreibelDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Hospital, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK.
S K WhiteDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Hospital, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK.
J C MoonDepartment of Cardiology, The Heart Hospital, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK ; The Heart Hospital Imaging Centre, University College London Hospitals NHS Trust, 16-18 Westmoreland Street, London, W1G 8PH UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2013-06-102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has become the gold standard not only for cardiac volume and function quantification, but for a key unique strength: non-invasive myocardial tissue characterization. Several different techniques, separately or in combination, can detect and quantify early and established myocardial pathological processes permitting better diagnosis, prognostication and tracking of therapy. The authors will focus on the histological and pathophysiological evidence of these imaging parameters in the characterization of edema, infarction, scar and fibrosis. In addition to laying out the strengths and weaknesses of each modality, the reader will be introduced to rapid developments in T1 and T2 mapping as well as the use of contrast-derived extracellular volume for quantification of diffuse fibrosis.

Indexed as

EdemaLate enhancementLGEMyocardial fibrosisT1T2

Identifiers

PMID25258658
PMCPMC4169521

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.