Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32691299›Full record

ReviewBiophysical reviews2020

Donor hearts in the Sydney Heart Bank: reliable control but is it 'normal' heart?

Steven Marston, Adam Jacques, Christopher Bayliss, Emma Dyer, Massimiliano Memo, Maria Papadaki, Andrew Messer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biophysical reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors.

Steven MarstonNHLI, Imperial College London, London, W12 0NN, UK. s.marston@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6054-6070
Adam JacquesCardiology Department, St Peters Hospital, Chertsey, KT16 0PZ, UK.
Christopher BaylissClinicalTrials, Guys and St Thomas Hospital Trust, London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Emma DyerIntensive Care Unit, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK.
Massimiliano MemoOmega Biotek, E3 2UL, London, UK.
Maria PapadakiDepartment of Cell and Molecular Physiology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Andrew MesserNHLI, Imperial College London, London, W12 0NN, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/11/20/29266
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human heart samples from the Sydney Heart Bank have become a de facto standard against which others can be measured. Crucially, the heart bank contains a lot of donor heart material: for most researchers this is the hardest to obtain and yet is necessary since we can only study the pathological human heart in comparison with a control, preferably a normal heart sample. It is not generally realised how important the control is for human heart studies. We review our studies on donor heart samples. We report the results obtained with 17 different donor samples collected from 1994 to 2011 and measured from 2005 to 2015 by our standard methodology for in vitro motility and troponin I phosphorylation measurements. The donor heart sample parameters are consistent between the hearts, over time and with different operators indicating that Sydney Heart Bank donor hearts are a valid baseline control for comparison with pathological heart samples. We also discuss to what extent donor heart samples are representative of the normal heart.

Indexed as

ContractilityDonor heartHuman myocardiumIn vitro motilityNormal heartSydney Heart BankTroponin I phosphorylation

Identifiers

PMID32691299
PMCPMC7429572

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.