Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23775539›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2014

Sports preparticipation cardiac screening: what about children?

Daniel De Wolf, Dirk Matthys

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of pediatrics, 2014. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel De WolfDepartment of Pediatric Cardiology, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium, Daniel.DeWolf@UGent.be.
Dirk Matthys
Ghent University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledSudden cardiac death in young athletes is a devastating event. Screening programs have been proposed to prevent sudden cardiac death in young athletes. Mortality rates and causes of death differ among young adults and children. Children have a considerably lower incidence of sudden cardiac death. Data lack to compare athletes and non-athletes in childhood, but 40-50 % of sudden cardiac death in this age group seems to be related to exercise. Screening programs including history and physical exam are not very sensitive or specific and will result in important numbers of false-positives and false-negatives. Especially, interpretation of ECG in children is different from ECG in adults, with less accurate diagnoses as a consequence. Secondary prevention by widespread education of simple resuscitation techniques and use of automatic external defibrillators if available will probably save as many lives as any screening program.

conclusionSufficient data are lacking to support general preparticipation screening with history, physical exam, and ECG in competitive children. Nevertheless, the impact of such a program, together with secondary preventive measures, should be evaluated in large prospective studies.

Indexed as

SportsChildChild, PreschoolDeath, Sudden, CardiacElectrocardiographyHumansMass ScreeningRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID23775539
OpenAlexW2092677860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.