ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Clinical comparison of cryoballoon ablation and radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: To analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of cryoballoon catheter ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the first treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF). Methods: 116 patients with PerAF who underwent the first-time catheter ablation were enrolled retrospectively, including 56 patients in CBA group and 60 patients in RFA group. The primary endpoint was symptomatic onset after 3 months of ablation or occurrence of atrial arrhythmia (ATA) with any documented duration more than 30 s. The secondary endpoints were perioperative complications and re-ablation 3 month after procedure. Results: No remarkable difference existed between CBA group and RFA group in the recurrence rate one year after operation (CBA 16.1% vs. RFA 23.3%, Conclusion: In this real-world study, the effectiveness and overall safety of CBA and RFA in the treatment of PerAF were comparable.
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.