Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28553365›Full record

ArticleComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2017

Mini Electrodes on Ablation Catheters: Valuable Addition or Redundant Information?-Insights from a Computational Study.

Stefan Pollnow, Joachim Greiner, Tobias Oesterlein, Eike M Wülfers, Axel Loewe, Olaf Dössel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stefan PollnowInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8254-2422
Joachim GreinerInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5454-2962
Tobias OesterleinInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1495-4927
Eike M WülfersInstitute for Experimental Cardiovascular Medicine, University Heart Center Freiburg, Bad Krozingen and Medical Faculty, University of Freiburg, Elsässer Str. 2Q, 79 110 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.
Axel LoeweInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2487-4744
Olaf DösselInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany.
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiofrequency ablation has become a first-line approach for curative therapy of many cardiac arrhythmias. Various existing catheter designs provide high spatial resolution to identify the best spot for performing ablation and to assess lesion formation. However, creation of transmural and nonconducting ablation lesions requires usage of catheters with larger electrodes and improved thermal conductivity, leading to reduced spatial sensitivity. As trade-off, an ablation catheter with integrated mini electrodes was introduced. The additional diagnostic benefit of this catheter is still not clear. In order to solve this issue, we implemented a computational setup with different ablation scenarios. Our

Indexed as

ElectrodesArrhythmias, CardiacCatheter AblationCathetersComputer SimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID28553365
PMCPMC5434470
OpenAlexW2610888147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.