Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30128844›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2018

Pericardial Disease Associated with Malignancy.

Ryan Schusler, Shari L Meyerson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Ryan SchuslerDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Shari L MeyersonDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. smeyerso@nm.org.
Northwestern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewPericardial effusion is commonly associated with malignancy. The goals of treatment should include optimizing symptom relief, minimizing repeat interventions, and restoring as much functional status as possible. RECENT

findingsPericardiocentesis should be the first intervention but has high recurrence rates (30-60%). For patients with recurrence, repeat pericardiocentesis is indicated in those with limited expected lifespans. Extended pericardial drainage decreases recurrence to 10-20%. The addition of sclerosing agents decreases recurrence slightly but creates significant pain and can lead to pericardial constriction and therefore has fallen out of favor. Most patients with symptomatic pericardial disease have a short median survival time due to their underlying disease. In patients with a longer life expectancy, surgical drainage offers the lowest recurrence rate. Surgical approach is based on effusion location and clinical condition. Subxiphoid and thoracoscopic approaches lead to similar outcomes. Thoracotomy should be avoided as it increases morbidity without improving outcomes.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsCardiac TamponadeDrainageEchocardiographyHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasmsPericardial EffusionPericardiectomyPericardiocentesisPericardiumRadiotherapySclerotherapyAntineoplastic AgentsCardiac tamponadeMalignancyPericardial disease (including epidemiology, clinical presentation, pathogenesis, detection, treatment, prognosis)Pericardial effusionPericardial windowPericardiocentesis

Identifiers

PMID30128844
OpenAlexW2888068826

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.