Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28209944›Full record

SynthesisAnatolian journal of cardiology2017

Impact of contact force technology on reducing the recurrence and major complications of atrial fibrillation ablation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xianhui Zhou, Wenkui Lv, Wenhui Zhang, Yuanzheng Ye, Yaodong Li, Qina Zhou, Qiang Xing, Jianghua Zhang, Yanmei Lu, Ling Zhang and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Smart Catheters for Diagnosis, Monitoring, and Therapy.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Long-term safety and effectiveness of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation using a porous tip contact force-sensing catheter from the SMART SF trial.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evolution of Force Sensing Technologies.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2017
    Article
  9. Accepting our own limitations: Perhaps technology can do better.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal
    Article
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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xianhui Zhou
Wenkui Lv
Wenhui Zhang
Yuanzheng Ye
Yaodong Li
Qina Zhou
Qiang Xing
Jianghua Zhang
Yanmei Lu
Ling Zhang
Hongli Wang
Wen Qin
Baopeng TangPacing and Electrophysiological Department, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University; Urumqi, Xinjiang-P. R. China. tangbaopeng1111@163.com.
Xinjiang Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contact force (CF) monitoring can be useful in accomplishing circumferential pulmonary vein (PV) isolation for atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a CF-sensing catheter in treating AF. Randomized controlled trials or non-randomized observational studies comparing AF ablation using CF-sensing or standard non-CF (NCF)-sensing catheters were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (January 1, 1998-2016). A total of 19 studies were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was AF recurrence within 12 months, which significantly improved using CF-sensing catheters compared with using NCF-sensing catheters [31.1% vs. 40.5%; risk ratio (RR)=0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.93; p<0.05]. Further, the acute PV reconnection (10.1% vs. 24.2%; RR=0.45; 95% CI, 0.32-0.63; p<0.05) and incidence of major complications (1.8% vs. 3.1%; OR=0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.95; p<0.05) significantly improved using CF-sensing catheters compared with using NCF-sensing catheters. Procedure parameters such as procedure duration [mean difference (MD)=-28.35; 95% CI, -39.54 to -17.16; p<0.05], ablation time (MD=-3.8; 95% CI, -6.6 to -1.0; p<0.05), fluoroscopy duration (MD=-8.18; 95% CI, -14.11 to -2.24; p<0.05), and radiation dose (standard MD=-0.75; 95% CI, -1.32 to -0.18; p<0.05] significantly reduced using CF-sensing catheters. CF-sensing catheter ablation of AF can reduce the incidence of major complications and generate better outcomes compared with NCF-sensing catheters during the 12-month follow-up period.

Indexed as

Pulmonary VeinsAtrial FibrillationCatheter AblationClinical Trials as TopicHumans

Identifiers

PMID28209944
PMCPMC5336771
OpenAlexW2586166049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.