ReviewThe Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management2025
Comparison Between Efficacy and Safety of Remote Magnetic Navigation and Manual Catheter Navigation for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: An Updated Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.
Review in The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management, 2025. 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.
- Clinical value of robot-assisted catheter navigation for cardiac electrophysiology ablation: current evidence and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Preclinical assessment of a novel ablation catheter specific to robotic magnetic navigation.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Letter from the Editor in Chief.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2025Article
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
Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is a common treatment for symptomatic AF. Remote magnetic navigation (RMN) and manual catheter navigation (MCN) are two predominant techniques employed in this procedure, each with advantages and limitations. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy, safety, and procedural outcomes of RMN versus MCN for AF ablation. A comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase to identify relevant studies comparing RMN and MCN for AF ablation. Statistical pooling was done using Review Manager 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for the evaluation of bias in observational studies. We evaluated the robustness of the evidence following the guidelines outlined by the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. The primary outcomes of the study included freedom from AF, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and total complication rate in patients undergoing AF ablation either using the RMN or MCN technique. A total of 22 studies involving 5361 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis demonstrated comparable freedom from AF between RMN and MCN (relative risk [RR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.04;
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.