Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36348845›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Smart Pacemaker: A Review.

Shivi Agarwal, Raju K Shinde

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shivi AgarwalOtolaryngology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, IND.
Raju K ShindeGeneral Surgery, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, IND.
Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences · INJawaharlal Nehru Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the first pacemaker was implanted, nearly 60 years have passed. Since then, pacemaker technology has made major advancements that have increased both its safety and effectiveness in treating people with bradyarrhythmias. The repeated stimulation of cells in specialized "pacemaker" regions of the mammalian heart and the transmission of stimulus via the ventricles serve as evidence that the electrical function of the mammalian heart is necessary for a regular mechanical (pump) role. The development of action potentials in individual cardiac cells is linked to myocardial electrical activity and the heart's regular cooperative electrical functioning. A container or pulse initiator that houses the battery and electronics, as well as lines that connect to the myocardium to deliver a depolarizing pulse and detect intrinsic cardiac stimulation, are all parts of a pacemaker. Defibrillators could be used with artificial hearts that have electrical pacemakers integrated into them in order to treat arrhythmia, heart failure, and cardiac arrest. Modern pacemakers have units for supporting patients with other disorders like "heart failure," which happens when the heart does not pump as forcefully as it should. While many pacemakers are effective in treating different types of arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats), they also have units for treating them.

Indexed as

arrhythmiasbiomedical electronic implantcardiac resynchronization treatmentdyssynchronyelectronic pacemaker

Identifiers

PMID36348845
PMCPMC9637326
OpenAlexW4303423391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.