Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35741108›Full record

ReviewCells2022

The Good and the Bad: Monocytes' and Macrophages' Diverse Functions in Inflammation.

Judith Austermann, Johannes Roth, Katarzyna Barczyk-Kahlert

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cells, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 127 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
127citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

127 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 163 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

67 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Judith AustermannInstitute of Immunology, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6973-7260
Johannes RothInstitute of Immunology, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7035-8348
Katarzyna Barczyk-KahlertInstitute of Immunology, University of Münster, 48149 Münster, Germany.
University of Münster · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monocytes and macrophages are central players of the innate immune response and play a pivotal role in the regulation of inflammation. Thereby, they actively participate in all phases of the immune response, from initiating inflammation and triggering the adaptive immune response, through to the clearance of cell debris and resolution of inflammation. In this review, we described the mechanisms of monocyte and macrophage adaptation to rapidly changing microenvironmental conditions and discussed different forms of macrophage polarization depending on the environmental cues or pathophysiological condition. Therefore, special focus was placed on the tight regulation of the pro- and anti-inflammatory immune response, and the diverse functions of S100A8/S100A9 proteins and the scavenger receptor CD163 were highlighted, respectively. We paid special attention to the function of pro- and anti-inflammatory macrophages under pathological conditions.

Indexed as

MacrophagesMonocytesAnti-Inflammatory AgentsCalgranulin AHumansInflammationAnti-Inflammatory AgentsCalgranulin ACD163chronic inflammationCOVID-19inflammationmacrophage plasticitymacrophagesmonocytesS100A8S100A9SIRS

Identifiers

PMID35741108
PMCPMC9222172
OpenAlexW4283211728

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.