ReviewClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2015
Cardiac surgery 2014 reviewed.
Review in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intra-procedural determination of viability by myocardial deformation imaging: a randomized prospective study in the cardiac catheter laboratory.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2017Trial
- Cardiac surgery 2017 reviewed.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2018Review
- Cardiac surgery 2016 reviewed.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2017Review
- Aortic events in a nationwide Marfan syndrome cohort.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2017Article
- Cardiac surgery 2015 reviewed.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2016Review
- Commenting on cardiology-cardiac surgery intersections.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For the year 2014, more than 17,000 published references can be found in Pubmed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". The last year has been characterized by a vivid discussion in the fields where classic cardiac surgery and modern interventional techniques overlap. Specifically, there have been important contributions in the field of coronary revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery as well as in the fields of interventional valve therapy. Here, the US core valve trial with the first demonstration of a survival advantage at 1 year with transcatheter valves compared to surgical aortic valve replacement or the 5-year outcome of the SYNTAX trial with significant advantages for bypass surgery has been the landmark. However, in addition to these most visible publications, there have been several highly relevant and interesting contributions. This review article will summarize the most pertinent publications in the fields of coronary revascularization, surgical treatment of valve disease, heart failure (i.e., transplantation and ventricular assist devices) and aortic surgery. This condensed summary will provide the reader with "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26404007What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.