ReviewFrontiers in psychology2015
Psychological effects of implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks. A review of study methods.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mindfulness-based emotional regulation for patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A randomized pilot study of efficacy, applicability, and safety.Cardiology journal · 2023Trial
- Let It Beat: How Lifestyle and Psychosocial Factors Affect the Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death-A 10-Year Follow-Up Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- [Quality of life in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator from a salutogenic perspective : A qualitative study in cardiologic health service research].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2020Article
- Florida Shock Anxiety Scale for Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator - Appreciating the Psychosocial Aspects.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
- Preventive Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation in Patients with Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy: Meta-analysis of Randomised Trials.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2019Review
- Posttraumatic stress disorder and mortality in VA patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.Clinical cardiology · 2018Article
- Time-Dependent Changes in Psychosocial Distress in Japanese Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.The Kobe journal of medical sciences · 2016Article
- Therapy for ventricular arrhythmias in structural heart disease: a multifaceted challenge.The Journal of physiology · 2016Review
- Embodying a New Meaning of Being At Risk: Living With an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator for Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) saves lives but clinical experience suggests that it may have detrimental effects on mental health. The ICD shock has been largely blamed as the main offender but empirical evidence is not consistent, perhaps because of methodological differences across studies.
objectiveTo appraise methodologies of studies that assessed the psychological effects of ICD shock and explore associations between methods and results. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of English articles that were published between 1980 and 30 June 2013 was applied to the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, NHS HTA database, PsycINFO, Sciencedirect and CINAHL. REVIEW
methodsOnly studies testing the effects of ICD shock on psychological and quality of life outcomes were included. Data were extracted according to a PICOS pre-defined sheet including methods and study quality indicators.
resultsFifty-four observational studies and six randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Multiple differences in methods that were used to test the psychological effects of ICD shock were found across them. No significant association with results was observed.
conclusionsMethodological heterogeneity of study methods is too wide and limits any quantitative attempt to account for the mixed findings. Well-built and standardized research is urgently needed.
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.