ReviewClinical epidemiology2026
The Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register: Review of Clinical and Research Potential.
Review in Clinical epidemiology, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register (DPIR) was established in 1982 as a hardware registry and clinical quality database dedicated to cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy. It is among the most comprehensive and longest-running CIED registries in the world and has recorded over 200,000 CIED procedures in more than 133,000 individuals. Leveraging the Danish registry infrastructure, individual-level linkage to other national clinical and administrative registries via the unique personal identification number greatly expands its research potential. This review summarizes the development, database structure, variable content and quality, and the clinical and scientific impact of DPIR. Examples of data quality include complete national coverage of all CIED procedures, standardized data-entry fields that minimize variability across centers, mandatory reporting of core variables, and high concordance between registry entries and source documentation. Data from DPIR has informed clinical practice guidelines and supported clinical quality improvement in Denmark and internationally.
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.