ReviewWorld journal of cardiology2017
Wearable cardioverter defibrillator: Bridge or alternative to implantation?
Review in World journal of cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sudden cardiac death while waiting: do we need the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator?Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2022Review
- Phantom Shocks Associated With a Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator.Journal of medical cases · 2021Article
- Computational Model for Therapy Optimization of Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator: Shockable Rhythm Detection and Optimal Electrotherapy.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
- Right coronary anomaly in a patient with myocarditis and cardiac arrest: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2018Article
- Therapy optimization in patients with heart failure: the role of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in a real-world setting.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Observational
- Comparison of the Outcome of Patients Protected by the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WCD) for <90 Wear DaysIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is effective to prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in selected patients with heart disease known to be at high risk for ventricular arrhythmia. Nevertheless, this invasive and definitive therapy is not indicated in patients with potentially transient or reversible causes of sudden death, or in patients with temporary contra-indication for ICD placement. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is increasingly used for SCD prevention both in patients awaiting ICD implantation or with an estimated high risk of ventricular arrhythmia though to be transient. We conducted a review of current clinical uses and benefits of the WCD, and described its technical aspects, limitations and perspectives.
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.