ArticleObstetric medicine2017
Atrial fibrillation with a structurally normal heart in pregnancy: An international survey on current practice.
Article in Obstetric medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex differences in early-onset atrial fibrillation in Norwegian primary care: a retrospective national database analysis.Open heart · 2024Article
- The Challenge of Managing Atrial Fibrillation during Pregnancy.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Women and atrial fibrillation.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle evidence exists for the optimal management of atrial fibrillation with a structurally normal heart in pregnancy.
methodsA survey was sent to members of two associations to obtain input on optimal management of atrial fibrillation in pregnancy. The survey presented four cases with respect to (1) baseline investigations; (2) rate versus rhythm control; (3) chemical versus electrical cardioversion; and (4) anticoagulation.
resultsSixty-one responders from 11 countries participated. High agreement was noted for baseline investigations. A quarter (25%) of participants chose elective cardioversion even with a reversible precipitant. Electrical cardioversion was preferred over chemical ( DISCUSSION: This study revealed that there was little consensus in current practice in pregnancy beyond basic investigations. An adaptation of established guidelines to the pregnant population would require a meeting of Cardiologists with input from colleagues in Obstetric Medicine.
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.