ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Borderline Ventricles: From Evaluation to Treatment.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A heart with a borderline ventricle refers to a situation where there is uncertainty about whether the left or right underdeveloped ventricle can effectively support the systemic or pulmonary circulation with appropriate filling pressures and sufficient physiological reserve. Pediatric cardiologists often deal with congenital heart diseases (CHDs) associated with various degrees of hypoplasia of the left or right ventricles. To date, no specific guidelines exist, and surgical management may be extremely variable in different centers and sometimes even in the same center at different times. Thus, the choice between the single-ventricle or biventricular approach is always controversial. The aim of this review is to better define when "small is too small and large is large enough" in order to help clinicians make the decision that could potentially affect the patient's entire life.
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.