Evidence mapPaperPMID 35799845Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2022

Myocardial regeneration protocols towards the routine clinical scenario: An unseemly path from bench to bedside.

Nadia Salerno, Luca Salerno, Fabiola Marino, Mariangela Scalise, Antonio Chiefalo, Giuseppe Panuccio, Antonella De Angelis, Eleonora Cianflone, Konrad Urbanek, Daniele Torella

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Statins and Cardiomyocyte Metabolism, Friend or Foe?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Polarizing Macrophage Functional Phenotype to Foster Cardiac Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

10 authors.

Nadia SalernoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy.
Luca SalernoDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Graecia University, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy.
Fabiola MarinoDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Graecia University, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy.
Mariangela ScaliseDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Graecia University, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy.
Antonio ChiefaloDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Graecia University, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy.
Giuseppe PanuccioDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy.
Antonella De AngelisDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Campania "L. Vanvitelli", 80138 Naples, Italy.
Eleonora CianfloneDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy.
Konrad UrbanekDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Graecia University, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy.
Daniele TorellaDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Magna Graecia University, 88100, Catanzaro, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Heart failure secondary to cardiomyocyte loss and/or dysfunction is the number one killer worldwide. The field of myocardial regeneration with its far-reaching primary goal of cardiac remuscularization and its hard-to-accomplish translation from bench to bedside, has been filled with ups and downs, steps forward and steps backward, controversies galore and, unfortunately, scientific scandals. Despite the present morass in which cardiac remuscularization is stuck in, the search for clinically effective regenerative approaches remains keenly active. Starting with a concise overview of the still highly debated regenerative capacity of the adult mammalian heart, we focus on the main interventions, that have reached or are close to clinical use, critically discussing key findings, successes, and failures. Finally, some promising and innovative approaches for myocardial repair/regeneration still at the pre-clinical stage are discussed to offer a holistic view on the future of myocardial repair/regeneration for the prevention/management of heart failure in the clinical scenario. Funding: This research was funded by Grants from the Ministry of University and Research PRIN2015 2015ZTT5KB_004; PRIN2017NKB2N4_005; PON-AIM - 1829805-2.

Indexed as

Bone marrow stem cellsCardiac cell therapyCardiac stem cellsMyocardial regenerationPluripotent stem cells

Identifiers

PMID35799845
PMCPMC9253597

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.