SynthesisJournal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine2019
Deformation imaging to assess global and regional effects of cardiac regenerative therapy in ischaemic heart disease: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deformation imaging to assess global and regional effects of cardiac regenerative therapy in ischaemic heart disease: A systematic review.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Infarct size and long-term left ventricular remodelling in acute myocardial infarction patients subjected to transcoronary delivery of progenitor cells.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2022Article
- Assessment of Myocardial Diastolic Dysfunction as a Result of Myocardial Infarction and Extracellular Matrix Regulation Disorders in the Context of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the most common endpoint in cardiovascular stem cell therapy research. However, this global measure of cardiac function might not be suitable to detect the regional effects sorted by this therapy and is hampered by high operator variability and loading dependency. Deformation imaging might be more accurate in detecting potential regional functional improvements by cardiac regenerative therapy. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive overview of current literature on the value of deformation imaging in cardiac regenerative therapy. A systematic review of current literature available on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed regarding both animal and patient studies in which deformation imaging was used to study cardiac cell therapy. After critical appraisal, outcomes regarding study design, type of cell therapy, procedural characteristics, outcome measure, method for measuring strain, and efficacy on both LVEF and deformation parameters were depicted. A total of 30 studies, 15 preclinical and 15 clinical, were included for analysis. Deformation outcomes improved significantly in 14 out of 15 preclinical studies and in 10 out of 15 clinical studies, whereas LVEF improved in 12 and 4 articles, respectively. Study designs and used deformation outcomes varied significantly among the included papers. Six studies found a positive effect on deformation outcomes without LVEF improvement. Hence, deformation imaging seems at least equal, and perhaps superior, to LVEF measurement in the assessment of cardiac regenerative therapy. However, strategies varied substantially and call for a standardized approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.