Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32778947›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2020

Cardiac Regeneration After Myocardial Infarction: an Approachable Goal.

Mauro Giacca

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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.

Mauro GiaccaKing's College London, British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence, School of Cardiovascular Medicine & Sciences, SE5 9NU London, United Kingdom. mauro.giacca@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2927-7225

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/19/11/34633
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewUntil recently, cardiac regeneration after myocardial infarction has remained a holy grail in cardiology. Failure of clinical trials using adult stem cells and scepticism about the actual existence of such cells has reinforced the notion that the heart is an irreversibly post-mitotic organ. Recent evidence has drastically challenged this conclusion. RECENT

findingsCardiac regeneration can successfully be obtained by at least two strategies. First, new cardiomyocytes can be generated from embryonic stem cells or induced pluripotent stem cells and administered to the heart either as cell suspensions or upon ex vivo generation of contractile myocardial tissue. Alternatively, the endogenous capacity of cardiomyocytes to proliferate can be stimulated by the delivery of individual genes or, more successfully, of selected microRNAs. Recent experimental success in large animals by both strategies now fuels the notion that cardiac regeneration is indeed possible. Several technical hurdles, however, still need to be addressed and solved before broad and successful clinical application is achieved.

Indexed as

GoalsMyocardial InfarctionAdultAnimalsCell DifferentiationHumansMyocardiumMyocytes, CardiacRegenerationCardiomyocyteLipid nanoparticlemicroRNAMyocardial infarctionRegenerationStem cells

Identifiers

PMID32778947
PMCPMC7417409

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.