Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25560903›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2015

Ischaemic conditioning: pitfalls on the path to clinical translation.

Karin Przyklenk

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.5field-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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guidelines for experimental models of myocardial ischemia and infarction.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2018
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Ischemia/Reperfusion.Comprehensive Physiology · 2016
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karin PrzyklenkCardiovascular Research Institute and Departments of Physiology and Emergency Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI, USA.
Wayne State University · US

Funding

Preconditioning Improves Coronary PatencyR01HL072684 · NHLBI · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI PRZYKLENK, KARIN · 2002 to 2012
$2.2M
Preconditioning Improves Coronary PatencyR56HL072684 · NHLBI · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI PRZYKLENK, KARIN · 2007 to 2007
$394k
NHLBI NIH HHS HL072684NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL072684NHLBI NIH HHS R56 HL072684
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of novel adjuvant strategies capable of attenuating myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion injury and reducing infarct size remains a major, unmet clinical need. A wealth of preclinical evidence has established that ischaemic 'conditioning' is profoundly cardioprotective, and has positioned the phenomenon (in particular, the paradigms of postconditioning and remote conditioning) as the most promising and potent candidate for clinical translation identified to date. However, despite this preclinical consensus, current phase II trials have been plagued by heterogeneity, and the outcomes of recent meta-analyses have largely failed to confirm significant benefit. As a result, the path to clinical application has been perceived as 'disappointing' and 'frustrating'. The goal of the current review is to discuss the pitfalls that may be stalling the successful clinical translation of ischaemic conditioning, with an emphasis on concerns regarding: (i) appropriate clinical study design and (ii) the choice of the 'right' preclinical models to facilitate clinical translation.

Indexed as

Ischemic Preconditioning, MyocardialTranslational Research, BiomedicalAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicDisease Models, AnimalHumansMyocardial Reperfusion InjuryResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID25560903
PMCPMC4386975
OpenAlexW1800198647

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.