ArticleCirculation reports2025
Initial Dose of Intravenous Atropine for Patients With Symptomatic Bradycardia - A Scoping Review.
Article in Circulation reports, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intravenous atropine is widely recommended as the first-line treatment for symptomatic bradycardia, but because the optimal initial dose remains uncertain, the aim of this scoping review was to examine the existing literature on the efficacy and safety of intravenous atropine at specific doses in adult patients with symptomatic bradycardia and to identify gaps in evidence. A systematic search of 4 databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Ichushi-Web) was conducted from inception to December 16, 2024. Studies were included if they reported administration of a specified dose of atropine in adult patients, regardless of study design. No randomized controlled trials directly comparing 0.5 mg vs. 1.0 mg were found. A total of 19 studies were included and categorized into groups based on initial atropine dose: low (<0.5 mg), moderate (0.5 mg ≤ dose <1.0 mg), high (≥1.0 mg), and those spanning multiple categories. No consistent relationship was found between atropine dose and clinical outcomes, such as heart rate response or adverse effects. None of the moderate-dose studies reported worsening bradycardia. Moderate-dose atropine could be safe, and the current practice of using 0.5 mg as an initial dose in Japan, where 0.5 mg/mL prefilled syringes are commercially available, appears clinically reasonable. However, in the absence of high-quality comparative data, future research should apply rigorous study designs to determine the optimal atropine dose in emergency care settings.
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.