Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35071358›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2021

Benefits and Pitfalls of the Perceval Sutureless Bioprosthesis.

Aleksander Dokollari, Basel Ramlawi, Gianluca Torregrossa, Michel Pompeu Sá, Serge Sicouri, Edvin Prifti, Sandro Gelsomino, Massimo Bonacchi

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Conventional Prostheses versus Sutureless Perceval for Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A comparative study of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with sutureless biological versus mechanical prostheses.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Aleksander DokollariSt. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Basel RamlawiDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Lankenau Heart Institute, Wynnewood, PA, United States.
Gianluca TorregrossaDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Lankenau Heart Institute, Wynnewood, PA, United States.
Michel Pompeu SáDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Lankenau Heart Institute, Wynnewood, PA, United States.
Serge SicouriDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Lankenau Heart Institute, Wynnewood, PA, United States.
Edvin PriftiMother Teresa Hospital, University of Tirana, Tirana, Albania.
Sandro GelsominoDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Massimo BonacchiCardiac Surgery Unit, Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Lankenau Institute for Medical Research · USLankenau Heart Institute · USMaastricht University · NLMother Teresa Hospital · ALSt. Michael's Hospital · CAUniversity of Florence · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

benefitsPercevalpitfallsreviewsuturelesssutureless valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID35071358
PMCPMC8766961
OpenAlexW4206071969

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.