ReviewDer Internist2006
[Prevention of sudden cardiac death].
Review in Der Internist, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- [ICD therapy as secondary prevention].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2010Pooled it
- Persistent left superior vena cava as a cause for an unsuccessful ICD implant.Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The problem of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is complex and many questions concerning the pathophysiologic mechanism are still unanswered. At present the only reliable way of recognizing high risk patients is by means of left ventricular dysfunction, measured as LV-EF<or=35%. The positive predictive accuracy for other non-invasive risk markers is too low. So far, antiarrhythmic drugs have failed to successfully prevent SCD. More than 25 years of clinical experience with the implantable defibrillator (ICD) with its continuous technical improvement has made the ICD the most effective weapon against SCD. Its effectiveness has been demonstrated in many prospective trials and the use of the ICD is fully enclosed within the current guidelines for the prevention of SCD. Guidelines do not, however, replace the physician's judgement and experience to correctly evaluate the patient's status. ICD therapy in the primary and secondary prevention of heart failure, which is often accompanied by a high risk of SCD is, however, not justified without guideline-adjusted therapy.
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.