ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2021
New indicators for systematic assessment of aortic morphology: a narrative review.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex-specific differences in clinical characteristics and organ damage in Hypertensive Urgencies.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Age-stratified analysis of descending aorta diameter in traumatic massive hemorrhage: a machine learning approach.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
- Article
- Identification of Genetic Variants Associated with Hereditary Thoracic Aortic Diseases (HTADs) Using Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Technology and Genotype-Phenotype Correlations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Using computed tomography angiography and computational fluid dynamics to study aortic coarctation in different arch morphologies.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Relationship Between Length and Curvature of Ascending Aorta and Type a Dissection.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to prevent the occurrence of aortic adverse events in ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm patients, preventive surgery is the sole option in case of large aneurysm. Identifying high-risk patients timely and accurately requires effective predictive indicators of aortic adverse events and accurate risk stratification thresholds. Absolute diameter measured after a single imaging examination, which has been used as the predictive indicator for decades, has been proved to be ineffective for risk stratification in moderately dilated aorta. Previously, new indicators combining absolute diameters with personalized parameters have been reported to show better predictive power of aortic adverse events than absolute diameters by correcting the effect of these parameters on the diameters. Meanwhile, combining three-dimensional parameters to formulate risk stratification thresholds not only may characterize the aortic risk morphology more precisely, but also predict aortic adverse events more accurately. These new indicators may provide more systematic assessment methods of patients' risk, formulate more personalized intervention strategies for ascending thoracic aortic aneurysm patients, and also provide a basis for researchers to develop more accurate and effective risk thresholds. We also highlight that the algorithm obtained by combining multiple indicators may be a better choice compared with single indicator, but this still requires the support of more evidence. Due to the particularity of syndromic aortic disease, whether these new indicators can be used for its risk stratification is still uncertain. Therefore, the scope of this manuscript does not include this kind of disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.