ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Preclinical extracellular matrix-based treatment strategies for myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Ischemic Injury to Arrhythmogenic Substrate: Molecular and Histopathological Insights into Post-Infarction Sudden Cardiac Death.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Bioengineered Cellular and Acellular Therapies for Ischemic Heart Disease in Clinically Relevant Models.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdministrating extracellular matrix (ECM) to restore cardiac function post-myocardial infarction (MI) shows promise, however study variability obscures its true impact. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies to assess the effects of ECM treatments on cardiac function and tissue homeostasis post-MI.
methodsWe searched PubMed and SCOPUS from inception to June 28, 2024, for animal studies describing ECM treatment post-MI (pre-registered on PROSPERO, CRD42022368400). Random effects meta-analyses compared ECM treatment to controls regarding left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), fractional shortening, infarct size, stroke volume, and left ventricular wall thickness. Subgroup analyses examined the influence of sex, species, ECM source, and administration method. Funnel plots and Egger's regression assessed publication bias.
resultsWe identify 88 articles which meet our inclusion criteria. These studies describe the use of rats (51%), mice (38%), and pigs (11%). 44% of studies use males, 34% females, 5% both sexes, and 17% did not report sex. Most studies employ permanent MI models (85%) over ischemia reperfusion models (15%), and deliver ECM via intramyocardial injection (59%), cardiac patch (39%), cardiac sleeve (1%), or osmotic pump (1%). Our meta-analysis demonstrates that ECM treatment significantly improves LVEF (MD: 10.9%, 95% CI: [8.7%;13.0%]; p = 8.057e-24), fractional shortening (MD: 8.2%, 95% CI: [5.6%; 10.9%]; p = 1.751e-09), stroke volume (SMD 0.6, 95% CI: [0.2;1.0], p = 0.004), left ventricular wall thickening (SMD 1.2, 95% CI: [0.9; 1.5], p = 1.321e-17), while reducing infarct size (-11.7%, 95% CI: [-14.7%;-8.6%], p = 3.699e-14). We find no significant differences between the various subgroups and no indication of publication bias.
conclusionsECM-based treatments significantly enhance cardiac function and tissue homeostasis in preclinical post-MI models, supporting further research toward clinical translation.
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.