Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35371866›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Morphometry of the Great Cardiac Vein in Cadaveric Hearts of South Indian Origin.

Vasudha Kulkarni, Geethanjali Ht, Tejaswi H Lokanathan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Vasudha KulkarniAnatomy, Dr. BR Ambedkar Medical College, Bangalore, IND.
Geethanjali HtAnatomy, Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences, Mandya, IND.
Tejaswi H LokanathanAnatomy, Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Sciences, Mandya, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction In recent years, rapid developments in procedures like cardiac pacing, targeted drug therapy, and trans coronary venous ablation have necessitated a need for a detailed study of cardiac venous anatomy. Because the number, diameter, and course of the coronary veins vary, extensive information on the patient's specific anatomy is required for the best planning of the treatment. With this background, we planned the current research to analyze the anatomy of the great cardiac vein (GCV) in terms of length and diameter, provide a formula for calculating diameter using linear regression analysis and report the frequency of formation of the triangle of Brocq and Mouchet. Methods We conducted this cross-sectional study on fifty-two adult human cadaveric hearts of South Indian origin collected during dissection classes for undergraduate medical students. We measured the GCV's length and diameter and applied the linear regression analysis to derive a formula for estimating the diameter of the GCV. We also noted the frequency of formation of the triangle of Brocq and Mouchet and presented it as a percentage. Results The mean length and width of the GCV were 67.77 mm and 2.76 mm, respectively. The formula obtained after linear regression analysis for calculating the diameter of the GCV was: the diameter of GCV=0.0089 (length of GCV vein) ± 2.147. The triangle of Brocq and Mouchet with GCV as the base was present in 97% of the hearts. Conclusion The length and diameter of the GCV reported in the current study were considerably lesser than the reported findings in the literature. These findings suggest significant variations in the anatomy of the cardiac veins and call for further research on the anatomy of cardiac veins.

Indexed as

cadavercoronary sinuscoronary vesselsdissectionhumansregression analysis

Identifiers

PMID35371866
PMCPMC8948444

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.