Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33876382›Full record

ReviewJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2021

Highlights and comments on EHRA/HRS/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus on risk assessment in cardiac arrhythmias: use the right tool for the right outcome.

Márcio Jansen de Oliveira Figueiredo, Gerardo Rodriguez Diez, Santiago Nava-Townsend, Alberto Alfie, Carina Hardy, Dario Di Toro, Manlio F Márquez

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2021. 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, top 94% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Márcio Jansen de Oliveira FigueiredoCardiology, Electrophysiology Service, University of Campinas (UNICAMP) Hospital, Campinas, Brazil. mjofig@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3477-4667
Gerardo Rodriguez DiezDepartment of Electrophysiology and Hemodynamic, Arrhytmias Unity, CMN 20 de Noviembre, ISSSTE, Mexico City, Mexico.
Santiago Nava-TownsendDepartment of Electrocardiology, National Institute of Cardiology "Ignacio Chavez", Mexico City, Mexico.
Alberto AlfieDivision of Electrophysiology, Instituto Cardiovascular AdventistaClinica Bazterrica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Carina HardyArrhythmia Unit, Heart Institute, University of São Paulo Medical School, Instituto do Coração -InCor, São Paulo, Brazil.
Dario Di ToroDepartment of Cardiology, Division of Electrophysiology, Argerich Hospital and CEMIC, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Manlio F MárquezDepartment of Electrocardiology, National Institute of Cardiology "Ignacio Chavez", Mexico City, Mexico.
Instituto Nacional de Cardiología · MXArgerich Hospital · ARInstitute for Social Security and Services for State Workers · MXInstituto Cardiovascular de Buenos Aires · ARUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with heart disease, or at high risk of developing a cardiac condition, usually undergo risk assessment by primary care physicians, internal medicine doctors, or cardiologists. There are several methods that can be used for this risk assessment, and their applicability differs with respect to availability, complexity, and usefulness in different geographic populations. This document focuses on some of the many relevant clinical topics recently presented in the "Expert Consensus on Risk Assessment in Cardiac Arrhythmias: Use the Right Tool for the Right Outcome," which include statements based on the best available evidence. In this review, we want to highlight and make some pertinent comments on some of the most relevant points of this Consensus.

Indexed as

Consensus Statements as TopicHeart DiseasesTachycardia, VentricularArrhythmias, CardiacHumansRisk AssessmentAtrial fibrillationCardiac arrhythmiasCardiac electrophysiologyElectrocardiographyInvasive electrophysiological studyVentricular tachycardia

Identifiers

PMID33876382
PMCPMC8055211
OpenAlexW3154263607

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.