ArticlePeerJ2021
Myocardial contrast echocardiography assessment of mouse myocardial infarction: comparison of kinetic parameters with conventional methods.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardisation and future of preclinical echocardiography.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2023Review
- Comparative assessment of coronary physiology using transthoracic pulsed-wave Doppler and myocardial contrast echocardiography in rats.European radiology experimental · 2023Article
- Pre-clinical safety and therapeutic efficacy of a plant-based alkaloid in a human colon cancer xenograft model.Cell death discovery · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study explores the use of a minimally invasive assessment of myocardial infarction (MI) in mice using myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE). The technique uses existing equipment and software readily available to the average researcher. C57/BL6 mice were randomized to either MI or sham surgery and evaluated using MCE at 1- or 2-weeks post-surgery. Size-isolated microbubbles were injected via retro-orbital catheter where their non-linear characteristics were utilized to produce the two-dimensional parameters of Wash-in-Rate and the Peak Enhancement, indicative of relative myocardial perfusion and blood volume, respectively. Three-dimensional cardiac reconstructions allowed the calculation of the Percent Agent, interpreted as the vascularity of the entire myocardium. These MCE parameters were compared to conventional assessments including M-Mode, strain analysis, and 2,3,5-Triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) staining. Except for the Wash-in-Rate 2-week cohort, all MCE parameters were able to differentiate sham-operated versus MI animals and correlated with TTC staining (
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.