ArticleScientific reports2024
Selection of social comparison standards in cardiac patients with and without experienced defibrillator shock.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- At the Intersection of Psychiatry and Cardiology: Assessment of Depressive, Anxiety and Cognitive Disorders in Patients Before and After the Implantation of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Comparison standards shape everyday judgments of low and high wellbeing in individuals with and without psychopathology: a diary-based investigation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) often report psychological distress. Literature suggests that patients with physical disease often compare their well-being and coping to fellow patients. However, we lack knowledge on social comparison among patients with ICD. In this study, we examined psychological distress and social comparison selection in patients with (ICD+) and without experienced ICD shocks (ICD-). We theorized that relative to ICD- patients, those with ICD+ display higher levels of psychological distress and thereby compare more frequently with fellow patients with more severe disease, but better disease coping and try to identify more strongly with these standards to improve their own coping. We recruited 92 patients with (ICD+, n = 38) and without an experienced ICD shock (ICD-, n = 54), who selected one of four comparison standards varying in disease severity and coping capacity. Relative to ICD-, ICD+ patients reported higher levels of device-related distress, but there were no significant differences in anxiety, depression, or quality of life. ICD+ patients selected more often comparison standards with poor coping and, irrespective of standard choice, displayed more negative mood following comparison. Our results show that ICD+ patients tend to perform unfavorable comparisons to fellow patients, which might explain higher psychological distress and worse coping. These findings warrant further research into social comparison as a relevant coping mechanism in ICD patients.
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.