ArticleScientific reports2018
Effects of different doses of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor mobilization therapy on ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of antifibrotic therapy for stricturing Crohn's disease: lessons from randomized trials in other fibrotic diseases.Physiological reviews · 2022Review
- Therapeutic effects of coronary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on rats with chronic ischemic heart disease.Open life sciences · 2020Article
- Use of Multifactorial Treatments to Address the Challenge of Translating Experimental Myocardial Infarct Reduction Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Clinical implications of Golgi protein 73 and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and their related factors in children with bronchopneumonia.Jornal de pediatriaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
G-CSF mobilization might be beneficial to ICM, but the relationship between effect/safety and the dosage of G-CSF remains unclear. In this study, 24 pigs were used to build ICM models and were randomized into four groups. Four weeks later, different dosages of G-CSF were given daily by subcutaneous injection for 5 days. Another 4 weeks later, all the animals were sacrificed. Electrocardiography, coronary arteriography, left ventriculography, transthoracic echocardiography, cardiac MRI, and SPECT, histopathologic analysis, and immunohistochemistry techniques were used to evaluate left ventricular function and myocardial infarct size. Four weeks after G-CSF treatment, pigs in middle-dose G-CSF group exhibited obvious improvements of left ventricular remodeling and function. Moderate G-CSF mobilization ameliorated the regional contractility of ICM, preserved myocardial viability, and reduced myocardial infarct size. More neovascularization and fewer apoptotic myocardial cells were observed in the ischemic region of the heart in middle-dose group. Expression of vWF, VEGF and MCP-1 were up-regulated, and Akt1 was activated in high- and middle-dose groups. Moreover, CRP, TNF-α and S-100 were elevated after high-dose G-CSF mobilization. Middle-dose G-CSF mobilization therapy is an effective and safe treatment for ICM, and probably acts via a mechanism involving promoting neovascularization, inhibiting cardiac fibrosis and anti-apoptosis.
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.