Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28616731›Full record

ReviewIrish journal of medical science2018

Renal nerve stimulation for treatment of neurocardiogenic syncope: a review from perspective of commercialization potential.

B O'Brien, H Zafar, F Sharif

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Irish journal of medical science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

B O'BrienBiomedical Engineering, School of Engineering and Informatics, National University of Ireland (NUI) Galway, Galway, Ireland.
H ZafarCardiovascular Research Centre Galway, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland. haroon.zafar@nuigalway.ie.
F SharifCardiovascular Research Centre Galway, School of Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A strong evidence of outcomes for vasovagal syncope is not easily identified. It would seem reasonable that the proposed Mayo Clinic technology would be reserved for cases with severe recurrent or refractory syncope. However, recurrence levels are relatively low, and while some predictive methods have been proposed, recurrence is also influenced by the interaction that occurs during screening and examinations, i.e. recurrence diminishes once an initial diagnosis has been made. Finally, a key factor in being able to identify suitable patients relates to understanding the relative significance of the vasodepression and cardioinhibitory components-the therapy is best suited to patients that have a significant level of both components. It is probably not needed in patients with mainly cardioinhibitory involvement-data from ISSUE 2 and ISSUE 3 studies suggest that this is a relatively large proportion, particularly with asystolic involvement. The challenge remains in having suitable screening tests to identify the best patients. Tilt table testing has questions concerning its ability to replicate clinical syncope-implantable loop recorders (ILRs) may provide more accurate data but their usage is not yet widely accepted given the costs and invasive nature of the monitor.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansKidneyMaleSyncopeSyncope, VasovagalImplantable loop recorders (ILRs)Renal nerve stimulationVasovagal syncope

Identifiers

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.