ArticleCirculation reports2026
Prognostic Implications of Right Bundle Branch Block in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Circulation reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Because the prognostic significance of right bundle branch block (RBBB) in the general population remains uncertain, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association of RBBB with clinical outcomes in general population cohorts. Methods and Results: We systematically searched major databases for population-based cohort studies reporting associations between RBBB and clinical outcomes. Hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using a random-effects model. A total of 14 studies were included in the systematic review, of which 5 (all-cause mortality), 4 (cardiovascular mortality), and 2 studies (pacemaker implantation) were included in the meta-analyses. RBBB was associated with a modest increase in all-cause mortality (HR 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.16), although the association was attenuated in the sensitivity analysis excluding the largest-weight study (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87-1.24). No significant association was observed between RBBB and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.90-1.59). RBBB was associated with an increased risk of pacemaker implantation (HR 3.03; 95% CI, 1.70-5.38), although the number of studies was limited. Conclusions: RBBB was associated with a modest and partially unstable increase in all-cause mortality, but no significant association with cardiovascular mortality was observed. RBBB may reflect underlying risk profiles or progressive conduction system abnormalities, rather than serving as a strong independent predictor of mortality.
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.