SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
Assessment of Redundant Meta-Analyses on Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The utilization of catheter ablation among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) has garnered significant attention. There has been a rapid proliferation of diverse articles addressing this topic. This study evaluated the potential redundancy in meta-analyses about this subject. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Web of Science for meta-analyses comparing catheter ablation with other therapies among patients with AF and HF from the inception date to December 25, 2023. The extracted data encompassed details about the author, country, publication time, journal, pre-registration status, number and type of included studies, primary endpoints, and results. Additionally, we scrutinized whether these meta-analyses referenced, described, or discussed prior relevant meta-analyses, or were cited within prominent international guidelines. Results: A total of 34 meta-analyses were included. Authors predominantly originated from the United States and China. The majority of articles were published in cardiovascular journals without pre-registration. There were two publication peaks, notably in 2018-2019 and 2023. Primary endpoints predominantly focused on all-cause mortality and alterations in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). A consistent trend emerged across most articles, indicating a 40-50% reduction in mortality and a 5-9% elevation in LVEF associated with catheter ablation. Approximately 79.4%, 64.7%, and 50% of the articles respectively cited, described, and discussed previous meta-analyses on the same subject. Only 9 meta-analyses were referenced in impact international guidelines. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates a notable prevalence of redundant meta-analyses within the domain of catheter ablation among patients with AF and HF.
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.