ReviewCureus2023
Safety and Efficacy of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) in the Detection and Prevention of Cardiac Arrhythmia - A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- ICD-Related Emergencies in Prehospital Care: A Descriptive Survey of Self-Reported Experience and Equipment Availability Among Polish Paramedics.Emergency medicine international · 2026Article
- Risk stratification for future cardiac arrest after COVID-19 vaccination.World journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Are They Truly Still "Enemies"?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) have been recommended as an effective therapy in treating sudden cardiac deaths. This study evaluates the safety and efficacies of ICDs in detecting arrhythmias. Different ICDs, such as the transvenous cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) and the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD), are used. This systematic review identified Embase, PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), and Web of Science as the primary electronic databases for research. Supplementation of the available articles for the review was done using Google Scholar. The population, exposure, control, outcome, and studies (PECOS) criteria were used in this study. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) standard checklist. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used in this systematic review. Two researchers conducted the extraction of data. A pre-designed Excel worksheet (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington) was used in the recording of extracted data. Eight studies were identified for use in this systematic review. Safety of the ICDs was observed with the minimum number of reported inappropriate shocks. Studies conducted identified that women had a lower number of incidences when a long detection setting by sex was conducted. Strategic programming of ICDs was noted as effective in lowering the levels of mortality. Studies claimed that the reduction of inappropriate shocks were important in the reduction of myocardial damage, which resulted in the mortality rate among the patients decreasing. Having high cutoff rates and long intervals for detection in ICD programming was noted to help in reducing ICD therapy intervention among patients. Differences among the male and female populations were inconsequential in the efficacy and safety of ICDs. Their effectiveness in sensitivity, pacing success, and defibrillation success were high and very significant. ICDs were safe in their use in the detection of arrhythmias.
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.