Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30604919›Full record

ReviewPhysiological reports2019

Conduction in cardiac tissue. Historical reflections.

Edward Carmeliet

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Physiological reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cardiac Impulse Propagation: An Integrated View.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

1 author.

Edward CarmelietKatholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two hypotheses have been proposed to explain propagation of the action potential in heart. According to the gap junction hypothesis local short-circuit currents pass from the proximal depolarized cell to the distal inactive cell via gap junctions and are responsible for the depolarization of the distal cell. In the ephapse hypothesis the depolarization of the proximal cell generates an electrical field in the narrow cleft between cells resulting in depolarization beyond threshold of the distal cell. Measurements of length constant, free diffusion of

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAnimalsCardiac ElectrophysiologyGap JunctionsGiant CellsHeart Conduction SystemHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansMyocytes, Cardiacconductionephapsegap junctionionic theorypatch

Identifiers

PMID30604919
PMCPMC6316167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.