Response to Molkentin's letter to the editor regarding article, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: the pitfalls of Cre knock-ins in the c-kit locus".

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.

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.

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Effects of caloric overload before caloric restriction in the murine heart.Aging · 2022
   Article
2. Cardiac regenerative therapy: Many paths to repair.Trends in cardiovascular medicine · 2020
   Review
3. Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transcription Factors in Cardiovascular Pathology.Frontiers in genetics · 2020
   Review
4. Murine Models Demonstrate Distinct Vasculogenic and Cardiomyogenic cKit+ Lineages in the Heart.Circulation research · 2016
   Article
5. Resident c-kit(+) cells in the heart are not cardiac stem cells.Nature communications · 2015
   Article
6. Generation of cardiac progenitor cells through epicardial to mesenchymal transition.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2015
   Review
7. Cardiac aging - Getting to the stem of the problem.Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology · 2015
   Review
8. c-kit(+) cells: the tell-tale heart of cardiac regeneration?Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2015
   Review
9. Biomaterial Approaches for Stem Cell-Based Myocardial Tissue Engineering.Biomarker insights · 2015
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Letter by Molkentin regarding article, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence: the pitfalls of Cre Knock-Ins in the c-Kit Locus".2014

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as