Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35805178›Full record

ReviewCells2022

Restenosis after Coronary Stent Implantation: Cellular Mechanisms and Potential of Endothelial Progenitor Cells (A Short Guide for the Interventional Cardiologist).

Tommaso Gori

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 19 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Relationship between serum endothelin-1 and in-stent restenosis following vertebral artery stenting.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Article
  14. Intrastent Restenosis: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tommaso GoriGerman Center for Cardiac and Vascular Research (DZHK) Standort Rhein-Main, Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2917-6707
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coronary stents are among the most common therapies worldwide. Despite significant improvements in the biocompatibility of these devices throughout the last decades, they are prone, in as many as 10-20% of cases, to short- or long-term failure. In-stent restenosis is a multifactorial process with a complex and incompletely understood pathophysiology in which inflammatory reactions are of central importance. This review provides a short overview for the clinician on the cellular types responsible for restenosis with a focus on the role of endothelial progenitor cells. The mechanisms of restenosis are described, along with the cell-based attempts made to prevent it. While the focus of this review is principally clinical, experimental evidence provides some insight into the potential implications for prevention and therapy of coronary stent restenosis.

Indexed as

CardiologistsCoronary RestenosisEndothelial Progenitor CellsConstriction, PathologicHumansStentscoronary arteriesinflammationstentstent restenosisstent thrombosis

Identifiers

PMID35805178
PMCPMC9265311
OpenAlexW4283738819

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.