Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28540214›Full record

ReviewCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2017

Coronary microvascular dysfunction in women with nonobstructive ischemic heart disease as assessed by positron emission tomography.

Roxana Campisi, Fernando D Marengo

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. INOCA: Ischemia in non-obstructive coronary arteries.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Coronary Microvascular Disease.Cardiology and therapy · 2022
    Review
  6. Coronary Microvascular Angina: A State-of-the-Art Review.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Roxana CampisiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Cardiovascular Imaging, Diagnóstico Maipú, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Fernando D MarengoLaboratorio de Fisiología y Biología Molecular, Instituto de Fisiología, Biología Molecular y Neurociencias (CONICET), Departamento de Fisiología y Biología Molecular y Celular, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · ARInstituto Argentino de Diagnóstico y Tratamiento · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional approaches for risk assessment of ischemic heart disease (IHD) are based on the physiological consequences of an epicardial coronary stenosis. Of note, normal coronary arteries or nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) is a common finding in women with signs and symptoms of ischemia. Therefore, assessment of risk based on a coronary stenosis approach may fail in women. Positron emission tomography (PET) quantifies absolute myocardial blood flow (MBF) which may help to elucidate other mechanisms involved such as endothelial dysfunction and alterations in the smooth muscle cell relaxation responsible for IHD in women. The objective of the present review is to describe the current state of the art of PET imaging in assessing IHD in women with nonobstructive CAD.

Indexed as

coronary flow reserve (CFR)ischemic heart disease (IHD)positron emission tomography (PET)Women

Identifiers

PMID28540214
PMCPMC5422845
OpenAlexW2610515519

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.