SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2015
Use of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Heart Failure Patients and Risk of Mortality: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in heart failure (HF) patients compared to pharmacologic/conventional management. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Springer Link Library databases up to February 10th, 2014. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mortality of the patients with HF were collected and calculated in a fixed-effects model or a random-effects model, as appropriate. Summary effect estimates were also stratified by sex and follow-up time. Egger's regression asymmetry tests were utilized for publication bias detection.
resultsA total of 7 separate studies including 15 520 patients (10 801 ICD cases and 4719 controls) with HF were considered in the meta-analysis. The overall estimates showed that ICD could statistically significantly reduce the mortality of male (RR=0.73, 95% CI: 0.66-0.80) and female (RR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.63-0.90) patients. In addition, the further stratification subgroup analysis indicated that ICD presented a significant reduction (male: RR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.64-0.81; female: RR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.85) of mortality after 2-3 years of ICD therapy. The RR (95% CI) effects of mortality after 4-5 years of ICD therapy for males and females were 0.76 (0.51-1.14) and 0.96 (0.68-1.37), respectively.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that ICD could reduce HF patient mortality despite the sex difference.
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.