Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26611337›Full record

ReviewTrends in molecular medicine2015

New Approaches to Biological Pacemakers: Links to Sinoatrial Node Development.

Vasanth Vedantham

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in molecular medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Cardiac Development at a Single-Cell Resolution.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Implementing Biological Pacemakers: Design Criteria for Successful.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Shenfu Injection: A Famous Chinese Prescription That PromotesEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

1 author.

Vasanth VedanthamDepartment of Medicine, Cardiology Division, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA; Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, San Francisco, CA, USA. Electronic address: vedanthamv@medicine.ucsf.edu.

Funding

Role of MicroRNA-1 in the Cardiac Ventricular Conduction SystemK08HL101989 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI VEDANTHAM, VASANTH · 2010 to 2014
$625k
NHLBI NIH HHS K08 HL101989NHLBI NIH HHS K08-HL101989
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Irreversible degeneration of the cardiac conduction system is a common disease that can cause activity intolerance, fainting, and death. While electronic pacemakers provide effective treatment, alternative approaches are needed when long-term indwelling hardware is undesirable. Biological pacemakers comprise electrically active cells that functionally integrate with the heart. Recent findings on cardiac pacemaker cells (PCs) within the sinoatrial node (SAN), along with developments in stem cell technology, have opened a new era in biological pacing. Recent experiments that have derived PC-like cells from non-PCs have brought the field closer than ever before to biological pacemakers that can faithfully recapitulate SAN activity. In this review, I discuss these approaches in the context of SAN biology and address the potential for clinical translation.

Indexed as

Biological ClocksAnimalsGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalHeart Conduction SystemHumansModels, BiologicalSinoatrial NodeTranslational Research, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID26611337
PMCPMC4679473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.