Letter regarding “Anteriolateral versus anterior–posterior electrodes in external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of clinical trials”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal electrode pad placement for successful cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains unknown. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 trials, Motawea et al. concluded that anterolateral (AL) positioned pads are more effective than anterior-posterior (AP) positioned pads for electrical cardioversion of patients with AF (odds ratio: 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02–1.92, p = .04).1 We previously reported a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of techniques to improve cardioversion success. In contrast to Motawea et al., we found that overall cardioversion success did not differ when comparing AL to AP-positioned pads (Risk ratio: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.96–1.06, p = .70).2 Two principal issues drive the differences between our studies' results. The first issue relates to study selection. Motawea et al. omitted four randomized trials that were included in our meta-analysis, this represents 389 extra participants or 21% more participants.3-6 They also erroneously included one prospective observational cohort study (111 participants).7 The second issue relates to data appraisal and/or data abstraction. The authors have recorded incorrect values for the trials by Alp et al. and Botto et al.8, 9 For these two trials, the authors appear not to have followed the intention to treat principle; some abstracted values represent cross-overs rather than the pad placements to which the patients were initially randomized. We, therefore, advise caution when interpreting the study by Motawea et al.; AL pad placement has not been shown to be superior to AP placement. A definitive trial addressing the question is ongoing (NCT05511389).10 An additional important limitation of these data not raised by Motawea et al., is that pad placement has rarely been tested in studies where participants were consistently receiving other co-interventions that have been proven effective (i.e., high energy and biphasic shocks). A large randomized controlled trial comparing pad placement in patients with AF with other best practices in place is thus warranted. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".