Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29478105›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2018

Cardiogenic Shock: Recent Developments and Significant Knowledge Gaps.

Hiren Patel, Haider Nazeer, Neil Yager, Joshua Schulman-Marcus

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hiren PatelDivision of Cardiology, Albany Medical Center, 47 New Scotland Avenue, MC-44, Albany, NY, 12208, USA.
Haider NazeerDivision of Cardiology, Albany Medical Center, 47 New Scotland Avenue, MC-44, Albany, NY, 12208, USA.
Neil YagerDivision of Cardiology, Albany Medical Center, 47 New Scotland Avenue, MC-44, Albany, NY, 12208, USA.
Joshua Schulman-MarcusDivision of Cardiology, Albany Medical Center, 47 New Scotland Avenue, MC-44, Albany, NY, 12208, USA. schulmj1@amc.edu.
Albany Medical Center Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewPatients with cardiogenic shock (CS) continue to have high rates of morbidity and mortality. We aimed to describe current principles in the management of CS including coronary revascularization, medical management, mechanical circulatory support, and supportive care. RECENT

findingsRevascularization is still recommended, but trials have not found a benefit in the revascularization of nonculprit artery lesions. New mechanical circulatory support options are available, but optimal use remains uncertain. Overall improvement in outcomes appears to have plateaued. There remain substantial knowledge gaps about the management of CS. The ideal timing and selection criteria for mechanical support remain under-developed. There has been little systematic study to inform medical management or supportive care of this patient population. A more expansive research focus is necessary to improve the care of CS.

Indexed as

Acute coronary syndromeCardiogenic shockCoronary revascularizationMechanical circulatory supportPercutaneous coronary intervention

Identifiers

PMID29478105
OpenAlexW2793884965

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.