ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Validation of an Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy Risk-Prediction Model in a Chinese Cohort.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel PKP2 compound heterozygous mutations causing neonatal early-onset arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy: insights into the synergistic pathogenicity of biallelic inactivation.Functional & integrative genomics · 2026Article
- China Multi-Center Cohort Study on Risk Evaluation of Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy: The ChinaCORE ACM Registry.JACC. Asia · 2025Article
- A novel tool for arrhythmic risk stratification in desmoplakin gene variant carriers.European heart journal · 2024Article
- Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Tachycardia Therapies: Past, Present and Future Directions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Long-Term Arrhythmic Follow-Up and Risk Stratification of Patients With Desmoplakin-Associated Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy.JACC. Advances · 2024Article
- Arrhythmic risk stratification in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- What's New in Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe novel arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC)-associated ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) risk-prediction model endorsed by Cadrin-Tourigny et al. was recently developed to estimate visual VA risk and was identified to be more effective for predicting ventricular events than the International Task Force Consensus (ITFC) criteria, and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) criteria. Data regarding its application in Asians are lacking.
objectivesWe aimed to perform an external validation of this algorithm in the Chinese ARVC population.
methodsThe study enrolled 88 ARVC patients who received implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) from January 2005 to January 2020. The primary endpoint was appropriate ICD therapies. The novel prediction model was used to calculate a priori predicted VA risk that was compared with the observed rates.
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 3.9 years, 57 (64.8%) patients received the ICD therapy. Patients with implanted ICDs for primary prevention had non-significantly lower rates of ICD therapy than secondary prevention (5-year event rate: 0.46 (0.13-0.66) and 0.80 (0.64-0.89); log-rank
conclusionsThe novel risk-prediction model had a good fitness to predict arrhythmic risk in Asian ARVC patients for primary prevention, and for secondary prevention patients after recalibration of the baseline risk.
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.