ReviewPhysiological reports2017
Will the real ventricular architecture please stand up?
Review in Physiological reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single Ventricular Torsional Mechanics After Fontan Palliation and Their Impact on Outcomes.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
- The Nematic Chiral Liquid Crystal Structure of the Cardiac Myoarchitecture: Disclinations and Topological Singularities.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Article
- Review
- An organosynthetic dynamic heart model with enhanced biomimicry guided by cardiac diffusion tensor imaging.Science robotics · 2020Article
- Polarized Light Imaging of the Myoarchitecture in Tetralogy of Fallot in the Perinatal Period.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- How are the cardiomyocytes aggregated together within the walls of the left ventricular cone?Journal of anatomy · 2019Review
- Resolving the True Ventricular Mural Architecture.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2018Review
- Rebuttal letter in response to Professor R.H. Anderson's letter 'Evolution of the vertebrate heart'.Journal of anatomy · 2018Article
- Will the real ventricular architecture please stand up?Physiological reports · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ventricular twisting, essential for cardiac function, is attributed to the contraction of myocardial helical fibers. The exact relationship between ventricular anatomy and function remains to be determined, but one commonly used explanatory model is the helical ventricular myocardial band (HVMB) model of Torrent-Guasp. This model has been successful in explaining many aspects of ventricular function, (Torrent-Guasp et al. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., 25, 376, 2004; Buckberg et al. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., 47, 587, 2015; Buckberg et al. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 47, 778, 2015) but the model ignores important aspects of ventricular anatomy and should probably be replaced. The purpose of this review is to compare the HVMB model with a different model (nested layers). A complication when interpreting experimental observations that relate anatomy to function is that, in the myocardium, shortening does not always imply activation and lengthening does not always imply inactivation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.