Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41501960›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2026

Comparison of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers with beta blockers as treatment for atrial fibrillation: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Tim Koldenhof, Barzi Gareb, Marcelle D Smit, Thijmen S A Bergwerff, Robert G Tieleman, Michiel Rienstra

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tim KoldenhofDepartment of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands.
Barzi GarebDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, 9713 GZ Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marcelle D SmitDepartment of Cardiology, Martini Hospital, Van Swietenplein 1, Groningen, 9728 NT, The Netherlands.
Thijmen S A BergwerffDepartment of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands.
Robert G Tieleman *Department of Cardiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, 9713 GZ, The Netherlands.
Michiel Rienstra *Department of Cardiology, Martini Hospital, Van Swietenplein 1, Groningen, 9728 NT, The Netherlands. m.rienstra@umcg.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-2581-070X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHeart rate control is one of the cornerstones of atrial fibrillation (AF) management and is recommended in all AF patients, even as background therapy for rhythm control. Both non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and beta blockers are recommended as first choice rate control drugs, but no preference is given. Even though there are important differences in pharmacological mechanisms and side effects between these drugs, large randomized controlled trials are lacking. We aim to critically evaluate and synthesize the scientific evidence comparing calcium channel blockers and beta blockers.

methodsA systematic review is conducted in four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central, collecting all original research published up until March 2025. Studies including patients with AF (P) treated with non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (I) or beta blockers (C) reporting heart rate (O) or other key secondary outcomes such as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events or mortality will be included. Titles and abstracts, as well as full texts, will be screened by two reviewers, and results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Assessment of risk of bias is evaluated using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias (RoB 2) tool for randomized controlled trials and the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized studies. If sufficient homogeneous data are available, meta-analyses are performed. DISCUSSION: Current systematic reviews on rate control in AF have primarily focused on acute rate control using the intravenous administration of calcium channel blockers and beta blockers. However, systematic reviews comparing these two drug classes for long-term rate control are lacking, and current guidelines offer little guidance for choosing one drug over the other. This systematic review with meta-analysis will compare the effects of calcium channel blockers and beta blockers on heart rate and provide a comprehensive overview of clinical outcomes and side effects in the treatment of AF. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview, helping clinicians tailor rate control for individual patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024526695.

Indexed as

Adrenergic beta-AntagonistsAtrial FibrillationCalcium Channel BlockersHeart RateHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsCalcium Channel BlockersAdrenergic beta-antagonistsAtrial fibrillationCalcium channel blockersHeart rate

Identifiers

PMID41501960
PMCPMC12875010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.