ReviewCureus2023
Which Is Better? Rate Versus Rhythm Control in Atrial Fibrillation: 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The optimal approach to managing AF, specifically rate control versus rhythm control, remains a topic of debate in clinical practice. This systematic review aims to compare the rate control and rhythm control strategies based on their clinical outcomes, quality of life, and adverse events associated with them. A comprehensive search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Research Gate, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), Scopus, and Embase (Excerpta Medica dataBASE) databases. A total of 1657 research papers were identified through the search strategy, and after applying the eligibility criteria, 28 studies were selected for the analysis. The studies encompassed a range of methodologies, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for study selection, data extraction, and analysis. The outcomes of interest included all: cause mortality, stroke, bleeding events, cardiovascular hospitalizations, quality of life, and adverse effects of treatment. Data were synthesized and presented in tables, charts, and forest plots for meta-analysis where appropriate. The results indicate that both rate control and rhythm control strategies have their own merits and limitations, with the outcomes varying based on patient characteristics and comorbidities. While rhythm control strategies may lead to better symptom control and improved quality of life, rate control strategies may be associated with lower risks of adverse events and complications. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the current evidence regarding rate and rhythm control strategies in AF management, offering insights for clinical decision-making and highlighting the need for individualized treatment approaches.
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.