MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402274880 · doi:10.1159/000541178

Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Pediatric Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardia

2024· review· en· W4402274880 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTachycardiaCochrane LibraryRadiofrequency catheter ablationConfidence intervalSupraventricular tachycardiaInternal medicineMeta-analysisCardiologySubgroup analysisParoxysmal supraventricular tachycardiaCatheter ablationPediatricsAblation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) in treating children with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT). METHODS: From inception to December 16, 2023, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), VIP (Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database), and WanFang were searched for this meta-analysis. Children under the age of 18 diagnosed with atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT) and atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) were enrolled. The outcomes included the success rate of RFCA, the recurrence rate of PSVT following RFCA treatment, and any complications associated with the procedure. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of studies. The outcome data were represented as rates (RATE) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on regions and follow-ups. RESULTS: Fourteen articles encompassing 6,032 children were included in the study. RFCA demonstrated remarkable efficacy in children patients, achieving success rates of 98% (RATE: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-0.99) for AVRT and 99% (RATE: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.00) for AVNRT. The analysis also reveals that post-RFCA, the recurrence rates for AVRT were 5% (RATE: 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03-0.07), while for AVNRT, they were slightly lower at 4% (RATE: 0.04, 95% CI: 0.02-0.08). In the subset of Asian children patients, these recurrence rates were observed to be 5% for AVRT and 3% for AVNRT. Monitoring for a duration of up to 12 months of post-RFCA indicated recurrence rates of 4% for AVRT and 3% for AVNRT. However, for follow-up periods extending beyond 1 year, there was a slight increase in these rates to 4% for AVRT and 6% for AVNRT. Additionally, the complication rates associated with RFCA in the children population were relatively minimal, recorded at 2% (RATE: 0.02, 95% CI: -0.01-0.06) for AVRT and 1% (RATE: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.02) for AVNRT. CONCLUSION: RFCA appears to be a highly effective and safe treatment option for AVRT and AVNRT in children, with high success rates and relatively low recurrence and complication rates. However, long-term follow-up may be necessary to monitor for potential recurrences. These findings are valuable for clinicians and patients in making informed decisions about the treatment of these cardiac arrhythmias in pediatric patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.012
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it