↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation and flutter

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
Electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation and flutter
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002903.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gillian E Mead, Andrew Elder, Andrew D Flapan, John Cordina

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation increases stroke risk and adversely affects cardiovascular haemodynamics. Electrical cardioversion may, by restoring sinus rhythm, improve cardiovascular haemodynamics, reduce the risk of stroke, and obviate the need for long-term anticoagulation. To assess the effects of electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation or flutter on the risk of thromboembolic events, strokes and mortality (primary outcomes), the rate of cognitive decline, quality of life, the use of anticoagulants and the risk of re-hospitalisation (secondary outcomes) in adults (>18 years). We searched the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (1967 to May 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2004), Embase (1980 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), proceedings of the American College of Cardiology (published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology 1983 to 2003), www.trialscentral.org, www.controlled-trials.com and reference lists of articles. We hand-searched the indexes of the Proceedings of the British Cardiac Society published in British Heart Journal (1980 to 1995) and in Heart (1995 to 2002); proceedings of the European Congress of Cardiology and meetings of the Joint Working Groups of the European Society of Cardiology (published in European Heart Journal 1983-2003); scientific sessions of the American Heart Association (published in Circulation 1990-2003). Personal contact was made with experts. Randomised controlled trial or controlled clinical trials of electrical cardioversion plus 'usual care' versus 'usual care' only, where 'usual care' included any combination of anticoagulants, antiplatelet drugs and drugs for 'rate control'. We excluded trials which used pharmacological cardioversion as the first intervention, and trials of new onset atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. There were no language restrictions. For dichotomous data, odds ratios were calculated; and for continuous data, the weighted mean difference was calculated. We found three completed trials of electrical cardioversion (rhythm control) versus rate control, recruiting a total of 927 participants (Hot Cafe; RACE; STAF) and one ongoing trial (J-RHYTHM). There was no difference in mortality between the two strategies (OR 0.83; CI 0.48 to 1.43). There was a trend towards more strokes in the rhythm control group (OR 1.9; 95% CI 0.99 to 3.64). At follow up, three domains of quality of life (physical functioning, physical role function and vitality) were significantly better in the rhythm control group (RACE 2002; STAF 2003). Electrical cardioversion (rhythm control) led to a non-significant increase in stroke risk but improved three domains of quality of life.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 37 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 43 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,726,252
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,373
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#260,727
of 336,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#180
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 336,137 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.