ReviewGlobal cardiology science & practice2025
Phrenic nerve and esophageal injury in pulsed field ablation versus radiofrequency and cryoablation.
Review in Global cardiology science & practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulsed field ablation versus thermal ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Adverse Event Landscape of Pulsed Field Ablation Catheters: A Computational Review of FDA MAUDE Post-Market Surveillance Data.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Initial Clinical Experience with Percutaneous Endocardial Septal Pulsed Field Ablation in Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy: A First-in-Human Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Budget Impact Analysis of Pulsed Field Versus Cryoballoon and Laser Procedures for Atrial Fibrillation in Italy.Clinical drug investigation · 2026Article
- Pulsed-Field Ablation in Adult Congenital Heart Disease: Promise, Prudence, and the Path Forward.JACC. Case reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
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.