Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28232850›Full record

ReviewStem cells international2017

Progenitor Cells for Arterial Repair: Incremental Advancements towards Therapeutic Reality.

Trevor Simard, Richard G Jung, Pouya Motazedian, Pietro Di Santo, F Daniel Ramirez, Juan J Russo, Alisha Labinaz, Altayyeb Yousef, Brijesh Anantharam, Ali Pourdjabbar and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cells international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Rebuttal from Ryan M. Sapp and James M. Hagberg.The Journal of physiology · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Diabetes and Cardioplegia.Journal of nature and science · 2017
    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

11 authors.

Trevor SimardCAPITAL Research Group, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Richard G JungCAPITAL Research Group, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Pouya MotazedianCAPITAL Research Group, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Pietro Di SantoCAPITAL Research Group, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
F Daniel RamirezCAPITAL Research Group, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Juan J RussoCAPITAL Research Group, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Alisha LabinazCAPITAL Research Group, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Altayyeb YousefCAPITAL Research Group, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Brijesh AnantharamCAPITAL Research Group, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Ali PourdjabbarInterventional Cardiology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.
Benjamin HibbertCAPITAL Research Group, Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada; Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0906-1363

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronary revascularization remains the standard treatment for obstructive coronary artery disease and can be accomplished by either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Considerable advances have rendered PCI the most common form of revascularization and improved clinical outcomes. However, numerous challenges to modern PCI remain, namely, in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis, underscoring the importance of understanding the vessel wall response to injury to identify targets for intervention. Among recent promising discoveries, endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) have garnered considerable interest given an increasing appreciation of their role in vascular homeostasis and their ability to promote vascular repair after stent placement. Circulating EPC numbers have been inversely correlated with cardiovascular risk, while administration of EPCs in humans has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes. Despite these encouraging results, however, advancing EPCs as a therapeutic modality has been hampered by a fundamental roadblock: what constitutes an EPC? We review current definitions and sources of EPCs as well as the proposed mechanisms of EPC-mediated vascular repair. Additionally, we discuss the current state of EPCs as therapeutic agents, focusing on endogenous augmentation and transplantation.

Identifiers

PMID28232850
PMCPMC5292398

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.