Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 407

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Implantable Defibrillators for the Prevention of Mortality in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Desai, Akshay S., Fang, James C., Maisel, William H., Baughman, Kenneth L.·2004·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.292.23.2874
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is effective in primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death among patients with prior myocardial infarction and depressed ejection fraction. However, conclusive evidence of survival benefit in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) is still lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ICD therapy reduces all-cause mortality in patients with NICM. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966-2004), EMBASE (1991-2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through first quarter, 2004), reports presented at scientific meetings (2003-2004), and bibliographic review of secondary sources. Search terms included defibrillator, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and sudden death. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were prospective randomized controlled trials of ICD or combined cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator (CRT-D) vs medical therapy enrolling at least some individuals with NICM and reporting all-cause mortality as an outcome. Of 675 potentially relevant articles screened initially, 8 reports of randomized trials enrolling a total of 2146 patients with NICM were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Included studies were reviewed to determine the number of patients randomized, mean duration of follow-up, primary end point, mortality of ICD cohort, and mortality of control cohort. DATA SYNTHESIS: Five primary prevention trials enrolling 1854 patients with NICM were identified; pooled analysis suggested a significant reduction in total mortality among patients randomized to ICD or CRT-D vs medical therapy (risk ratio [RR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.87; P = .002). Mortality reduction remained significant even after elimination of CRT-D trials. Two of the 3 secondary prevention trials presented subgroup estimates for ICD efficacy in NICM. Pooled analysis of these secondary prevention trials (n = 256 patients with NICM) indicated an equivalent but nonsignificant mortality reduction with ICD therapy (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.39-1.24; P = .22). Analysis of all 7 trials combined demonstrated a statistically significant 31% overall reduction in mortality with ICD therapy (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86; P = .002). CONCLUSION: ICD therapy appears to significantly reduce mortality in selected patients with NICM.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.292.23.2874

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Desai, A. S., Fang, J. C., Maisel, W. H., & Baughman, K. L.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2004-12-15
Volume
292
Issue
23
Pages
2874
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.292.23.2874
OpenAlex
W2035581854
Cited by
407
References
6
FWCI
11.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.