Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26580958›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Determinants of the Efficacy of Cardiac Ischemic Preconditioning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Animal Studies.

Kimberley E Wever, Carlijn R Hooijmans, Niels P Riksen, Thomas B Sterenborg, Emily S Sena, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga, Michiel C Warlé

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology.Archives of toxicology · 2017
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

7 authors.

Kimberley E WeverSystematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Carlijn R HooijmansSystematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Niels P RiksenDepartment of Internal Medicine and Dept. of Pharmacology-Toxicology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Thomas B SterenborgDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Emily S SenaCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Merel Ritskes-HoitingaSystematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Michiel C WarléDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIschemic preconditioning (IPC) of the heart is a protective strategy in which a brief ischemic stimulus immediately before a lethal ischemic episode potently limits infarct size. Although very promising in animal models of myocardial infarction, IPC has not yet been successfully translated to benefit for patients.

objectiveTo appraise all preclinical evidence on IPC for myocardial infarction and identify factors hampering translation. METHODS AND

resultsUsing systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified 503 animal studies reporting infarct size data from 785 comparisons between IPC-treated and control animals. Overall, IPC reduced myocardial infarction by 24.6% [95%CI 23.5, 25.6]. Subgroup analysis showed that IPC efficacy was reduced in comorbid animals and non-rodents. Efficacy was highest in studies using 2-3 IPC cycles applied <45 minutes before myocardial infarction. Local and remote IPC were equally effective. Reporting of study quality indicators was low: randomization, blinding and a sample size calculation were reported in 49%, 11% and 2% of publications, respectively.

conclusionsTranslation of IPC to the clinical setting may be hampered by the observed differences between the animals used in preclinical IPC studies and the patient population, regarding comorbidity, sex and age. Furthermore, the IPC protocols currently used in clinical trials could be optimized in terms of timing and the number of ischemic cycles applied. In order to inform future clinical trials successfully, future preclinical studies on IPC should aim to maximize both internal and external validity, since poor methodological quality may limit the value of the preclinical evidence.

Indexed as

Ischemic Preconditioning, MyocardialAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicDisease Models, AnimalHeartHumansMyocardial Infarction

Identifiers

PMID26580958
PMCPMC4651366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.