ReviewHeart rhythm O22026
A framework for developing successful academic-industry partnerships for cardiovascular innovations.
Review in Heart rhythm O2, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease remains the leading global cause of death, yet the translation of innovative technologies into clinical practice faces considerable challenges. Academic-industry partnerships offer a collaborative pathway, combining academic clinical expertise with industry resources to systematically advance cardiovascular innovation. These alliances enable the identification of unmet needs, the development and validation of novel solutions, and streamlined regulatory and commercialization processes. Despite their growing importance and the shift in research funding from federal sources to industry collaborations, inconsistent outcomes and ethical concerns persist owing to the lack of standardized partnership frameworks. This review proposes a comprehensive framework to guide successful cardiovascular academic-industry partnerships, emphasizing 5 core principles: strategic alignment, infrastructure investment, systematic assessment, graduated implementation, and robust ethical oversight. Specific partnership types and contractual agreements are discussed, along with common barriers such as divergent priorities and intellectual property conflicts. Through case study analysis and a detailed governance model, we illustrate how dedicated structures and thorough conflict management can foster trust, maximize mutual value, and accelerate patient-centered innovation. Implementing best practices ensures that these partnerships drive global cardiovascular advancements, benefiting academia, industry, and patient outcomes alike.
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.