Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34515837›Full record

ReviewBasic research in cardiology2021

IMproving Preclinical Assessment of Cardioprotective Therapies (IMPACT) criteria: guidelines of the EU-CARDIOPROTECTION COST Action.

Sandrine Lecour, Ioanna Andreadou, Hans Erik Bøtker, Sean M Davidson, Gerd Heusch, Marisol Ruiz-Meana, Rainer Schulz, Coert J Zuurbier, Péter Ferdinandy, Derek J Hausenloy and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Basic research in cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

89 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

29 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

11 authors.

Sandrine Lecour *Department of Medicine, Hatter Institute for Cardiovascular Research in Africa, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1942-8974
Ioanna Andreadou *Laboratory of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1504-9942
Hans Erik BøtkerDepartment of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus N, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6358-8962
Sean M DavidsonThe Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5182-4980
Gerd HeuschInstitute for Pathophysiology, West German Heart and Vascular Center, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Marisol Ruiz-MeanaCardiovascular Diseases Research Group, Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4067-4638
Rainer SchulzInstitute for Physiology, Justus-Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3017-0476
Coert J ZuurbierLaboratory of Experimental Intensive Care Anesthesiology, Department Anesthesiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8361-2448
Péter Ferdinandy *Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6424-6806
Derek J Hausenloy *The Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, University College London, London, UK. d.hausenloy@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0729-4956
on behalf of the European Union-CARDIOPROTECTION COST ACTION CA16225

Funding

British Heart Foundation PG/16/85/32471British Heart Foundation PG/19/51/34493Medical Research Council MR/J003530/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and the heart failure (HF) which may follow are among the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. As such, new therapeutic interventions are still needed to protect the heart against acute ischemia/reperfusion injury to reduce myocardial infarct size and prevent the onset of HF in patients presenting with AMI. However, the clinical translation of cardioprotective interventions that have proven to be beneficial in preclinical animal studies, has been challenging. One likely major reason for this failure to translate cardioprotection into patient benefit is the lack of rigorous and systematic in vivo preclinical assessment of the efficacy of promising cardioprotective interventions prior to their clinical evaluation. To address this, we propose an in vivo set of step-by-step criteria for IMproving Preclinical Assessment of Cardioprotective Therapies ('IMPACT'), for investigators to consider adopting before embarking on clinical studies, the aim of which is to improve the likelihood of translating novel cardioprotective interventions into the clinical setting for patient benefit.

Indexed as

Heart FailureMyocardial InfarctionReperfusion InjuryAnimalsHumansCardioprotectionDrug developmentInfarctionIschemiaReperfusion

Identifiers

PMID34515837
PMCPMC8437922

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.