Key result
This paper is a protocol for a network meta-analysis comparing external electrical and pharmacological cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, and thus reports no clinical results.
Why the study?
The objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and electrical cardioversion for AF.
What is the comparative efficacy and safety of external electrical and pharmacological cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardias?
Meta-Analysis
What is the comparative efficacy and safety of external electrical and pharmacological cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardias?
This is a protocol for a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and electrical cardioversion for atrial arrhythmias.
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation (AF).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Providência et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in Atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardias. External electrical and pharmacological cardioversion vs. Placebo or active comparator was evaluated on Maintenance of sinus rhythm until hospital discharge or end of study follow-up. This paper is a protocol for a network meta-analysis comparing external electrical and pharmacological cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, and thus reports no clinical results.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: