MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931798009 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8219830

Adverse Effects and Limitations of Adenosine in Treatment of Narrow QRS Complex Tachycardia (NCT) and Broad Complex Tachycardia (BCT): A Systematic Review

2023· article· en· W6931798009 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTachycardiaAdverse effectReciprocating motionTroubleshootingRandomized controlled trialOrthodromicAtrioventricular nodePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been always a need to unlock the key to a different kind of tachycardia, tachyarrhythmias, in short, Narrow complex tachycardias {which includes Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT), Atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia (AVRT), Nonparoxysmal junctional tachycardia (NPJT), Orthodromic Reciprocating Tachycardia (ORT), Permanent junctional reciprocating tachycardia (PJRT)} which also lead to broad complex tachycardias, it’s appropriate management at that juncture with the consideration of all the adverse effects and limitations, with Adenosine and verapamil, while taking into consideration the contraindications of both the adenosine, the calcium channel blockers (verapamil/diltiazem) used for the chemical conversion of Supra Ventricular tachycardia (SVT) even when the accessory pathways are involved. The use of the drugs as a diagnostic tool be it the presence of latent pre-excitation, fasciculo-ventricular pathway, and unmasking the dual atrioventricular (AV) nodal physiology along with the treatment tool has also been discussed. On February 10, 2023, many databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library, were used to search the chosen studies. The chosen papers for this review were released up until 2014. The PRISMA flow diagram included a description of the systematic search. 6,542 articles were initially identified for the chosen databases. After the manual selection of papers and quality evaluation of the essential articles, 10 articles were ultimately picked for the thesis' foundation. Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) are evaluated for quality using the Cochrane bias assessment tool, the Prisma checklist for systematic reviews, the JB check tool for case reports, and the Newcastle Ottawa tool for non-randomized clinical trials. There are three aspects covered, which are the methods of administration, complications post-adenosine administration, and effectiveness & adverse effects of adenosine & Calcium Channel Blockers in Supra Ventricular Tachycardia. Comparison of the success rate, adverse effects, and conversion rate and its interpretation through the selected articles. Success rates for Adenosine and Verapamil are compared. Comparison of adenosine injection techniques' rates of success. Comparison of adenosine administration difficulties experienced by participants in various studies. Comparison of the issues faced by participants in several studies who took Verapamil through graphical representation. Comparatively, Adenosine has been found as the superior drug, irrespective of increased side effects due to its short half-life (approx. nine seconds) and fast conversing action, leading to an increased success rate. It can be concluded that Shortness of breath (SOB) and flushing have both significantly impacted complications. It is followed in descending order by nausea, vomiting, chest pain, bradycardia, and the remaining problems. On the other hand, side effects from taking verapamil show that hypotension is the most commonly impacted, followed by shortness of breath and other side effects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.011
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207