ReviewCJC open2025
Rhythm vs Rate Control Strategies for Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation After Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in CJC open, 2025. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Electrocardiography for Preoperatively Detecting Atrial Fibrillation and Mortality Risk in Patients with Sinus Rhythm.International journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For patients with perioperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after noncardiac surgery, earlier conversion to sinus rhythm might improve outcomes. The efficacy of a rhythm vs rate control strategy for the acute management of POAF remains uncertain. Methods: We searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that included patients with POAF after noncardiac surgery and reported outcomes for patients acutely treated with a rhythm control strategy vs either a rate control or no treatment strategy. Studies were pooled using random effects models. Results: Of the observational studies, a rhythm control strategy was associated with higher conversion rates to sinus rhythm compared with a rate control or no treatment strategy (risk ratio [RR], 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-2.97; 9 studies; N = 591). Compared with a rate control or no treatment strategy, a rhythm control strategy was not associated with differences in length of hospital stay (mean difference, -1.67 days; 95% CI, -7.10 to 3.76; 2 studies), length of intensive care stay (mean difference, -1.90 days; 95% CI, -7.62 to 3.82; 1 study), or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.62-2.00; 5 studies). In an RCT that compared amiodarone vs magnesium, the RR was 0.56 for conversion to sinus rhythm (95% CI, 0.31-1.03; N = 34). Conclusions: A rhythm control strategy was associated with greater success rates for conversion to sinus rhythm compared with a rate control or no treatment strategy. However, the observational studies were of low quality and only 1 small RCT was identified, and few data were available for other outcomes.
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.