ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of catheter ablation technologies for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical value of robot-assisted catheter navigation for cardiac electrophysiology ablation: current evidence and future directions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: There are several interventional approaches to atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation; however, it is not yet known which procedure is most effective. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of different interventional approaches for the treatment of AF through network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched randomized controlled trial (RCT) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the initial period to December 2024, and studies were selected which had cryoballoon ablation (CBA), conventional radiofrequency ablation (RFA), remote magnetic navigation ablation (RMN), and pulsed field ablation (PFA) as an arm in the study. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using a frequentist approach with STATA (version 14.0) software. Results: We included 10 RCT studies and 4 PSM studies. For freedom from AF and other atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT) indicators, PFA may become the most effective ablation procedure (SUCRA = 88.4%, RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03-1.21). For procedure duration, PFA may also be the ablation procedure with the best results (SUCRA = 91.2%, SMD = -1.43, 95% CI: -2.47 to -0.39). Conclusion: The choice of ablation technique needs to be weighed against the specific clinical needs and the patient's situation. PFA may be the best choice if success rate and procedure time are prioritized, while RMN is more appropriate if complication rates and fluoroscopy time are more important. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42025631158, identifier: CRD42025631158.
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.