↓ Skip to main content

The effects of rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effects of rhythm control strategies versus rate control strategies for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0449-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Naqash J. Sethi, Sanam Safi, Emil E. Nielsen, Joshua Feinberg, Christian Gluud, Janus C. Jakobsen

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia of the heart with a prevalence of approximately 2% in the western world. Atrial flutter, another arrhythmia, occurs less often with an incidence of approximately 200,000 new patients per year in the USA. Patients with atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter have an increased risk of death and morbidities. The management of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter is often based on interventions aiming at either a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy. The evidence on the comparable effects of these strategies is unclear. This protocol for a systematic review aims at identifying the best overall treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter. This protocol for a systematic review was performed following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and the eight-step assessment procedure suggested by Jakobsen and colleagues. We plan to include all relevant randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of any rhythm control strategy versus any rate control strategy. We plan to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded on Web of Science, and BIOSIS to identify relevant trials. Any eligible trial will be assessed and classified as either high risk of bias or low risk of bias, and our conclusions will be based on trials with low risk of bias. The analyses of the extracted data will be performed using Review Manager 5 and Trial Sequential Analysis. For both our primary and secondary outcomes, we will create a 'Summary of Findings' table and use GRADE assessment to assess the quality of the evidence. The results of this systematic review have the potential to benefit thousands of patients worldwide as well as healthcare systems and healthcare economy. PROSPERO CRD42016051433.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 49%
Computer Science 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 14 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,986,666
of 9,165,968 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#664
of 784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,834
of 253,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#42
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,165,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 253,797 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.