Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33361140›Full record

ReviewDisease models & mechanisms2020

Mouse models of myocardial infarction: comparing permanent ligation and ischaemia-reperfusion.

Carla De Villiers, Paul R Riley

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in Disease models & mechanisms, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Transient Increase in ATInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. NF-Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026
    Review

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Carla De VilliersDepartment of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK.
Paul R RileyDepartment of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PT, UK paul.riley@dpag.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-9862-7332
British Heart Foundation · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/11/1/28798British Heart Foundation RG/18/5/33532British Heart Foundation RM/17/2/33,380
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Myocardial infarction (MI) is a disease of major consequence in the modern world, causing permanent, irreversible damage to the heart. Survivors are at risk for developing further cardiovascular pathologies such as heart failure. Further study of MI injury is crucial to improve the understanding and treatment of the post-MI heart. The most commonly used model for MI

Indexed as

ReperfusionAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalLigationMyocardial InfarctionIschaemia-reperfusionLAD ligationMouse modelsMyocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID33361140
PMCPMC7687859
OpenAlexW3104296227

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.