Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32280415›Full record

ReviewMethodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal

Acute Mechanical Circulatory Support for Cardiogenic Shock.

Kartik S Telukuntla, Jerry D Estep

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Cardioprotection in cardiovascular surgery.Basic research in cardiology · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kartik S TelukuntlaCLEVELAND CLINIC, CLEVELAND, OHIO.
Jerry D EstepCLEVELAND CLINIC, CLEVELAND, OHIO.
Cleveland Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and clinicians have increasingly used short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) over the last 15 years to manage outcomes. In general, the provision of greater hemodynamic support comes with device platforms that are more complex and potentially associated with more adverse events. In this review, we compare and contrast the available percutaneous and surgically placed device types used in cardiogenic shock and discuss the associated clinical and hemodynamic data to support device use.

Indexed as

Heart-Assist DevicesHemodynamicsOxygenators, MembraneVentricular FunctionExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationHumansIntra-Aortic Balloon PumpingRecovery of FunctionRisk FactorsShock, CardiogenicTreatment Outcomecardiogenic shockCentriMagECMOextracorporeal membrane oxygenationImpellaintra-aortic balloon pumpmechanical circulatory supportTandemHeart

Identifiers

PMID32280415
PMCPMC7137625
OpenAlexW3027855367

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.