ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2023
Effect of COVID-19 on cardiac electrophysiology practice: a systematic review of literature.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The authors conducted a systematic review on the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 on electrophysiology (EP) practice and procedure volume in various settings. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Embase were examined with combinations of medical subject headings terms for identification of the relevant studies. After excluding duplicates, irrelevant, and ineligible studies, 23 studies were included for full qualitative analysis. The overall study-level volume reduction of EP procedures ranged from 8 to 96.7%. All studies reported an overall reduction in EP physiology procedures being carried out except one in Poland, which reported an overall increase in the total EP procedures carried out in 2020. This study still reported a decrease in EP procedure volume during the first lockdown phase. Procedural volume reduction was seen most commonly for cardiovascular implantable electronic device placement (20/23 studies, 86.9%), electrophysiology studies (11/23 studies, 47.8%), and ablations (9/23, 39.1% studies). The most common reason stated for the observed decline in EP procedures was the cancellation and postponement of nonurgent elective cases in the hospitals (15/23 studies, 65.2%). There has been an overall reduction in EP procedure volume across different centers. The impact of the decline in EP procedures will be seen only after the services resume to prepandemic levels, but an increase in-patient volume and procedure waiting time is expected. This review will provide insights into improving healthcare service delivery in times of unprecedented public health emergencies.
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.