ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
The lack of evidence-based management in electrical storm: a scoping review.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrical storm (ES) is associated with a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. Despite this, there has been limited research in ES resulting in uncertainty and inconsistency in the management of this life-threatening condition. The objective of this scoping review was to define the current body of literature evaluating pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic therapies used in the management of ES. A comprehensive search of Medline, CENTRAL and Embase was completed on January 11, 2025. Primary studies on pharmacotherapies in ES were included if they reported therapy-related outcomes and included ≥ 5 adult patients. A total of 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were randomized control trials (three trials had overlapping cohorts) and the remaining were observational studies. Amiodarone, quinidine, landiolol, isoproterenol, and mexiletine were the most studied medications. The use of sedation for ES was exclusively studied in the context of mechanical ventilation. There was an increase in the number of ES studies over time, but sample sizes remained small and unchanged. Existing evidence to guide the management of ES is predominantly based on small observational studies. High quality data to inform the management of ES is needed.
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.