Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Catheter Ablation Technologies for Atrial Fibrillation

Ruiting Feng's systematic review and network meta-analysis compares four catheter ablation technologies for atrial fibrillation. The analysis includes 10 randomized controlled trials and 4 propensity-score matched studies, sourced from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to December 2024. Results are presented in a 35.2 KB DOCX file, last updated on 2026-04-14.

Use Cases

• Compare the efficacy of pulsed field ablation versus cryoballoon ablation based on freedom from atrial fibrillation rates.
• Analyze procedure duration differences among ablation technologies based on standardized mean difference metrics.
• Rank ablation procedures using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores for safety and efficacy outcomes.
• Inform clinical guideline development based on network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Strengths

• Includes 14 total studies (10 RCTs and 4 PSM studies) for analysis.
• Results include specific statistical metrics: SUCRA scores up to 91.2% and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
• Has a registered systematic review protocol (CRD42025631158) providing methodological transparency.
• Uses a frequentist network meta-analysis approach with STATA software.

Limitations

• Row count and column-level documentation are absent; data structure must be inferred from the text.
• The dataset is a 35.2 KB DOCX file, indicating a very limited scope, likely containing summary results rather than raw trial data.
• Data may reflect publication bias inherent to the systematic review's source databases.

Provenance

Source

Ruiting Feng via figshare.

Collection Method

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library.

Time Range

Studies from initial period to December 2024.

Freshness

Last updated 2026-04-14 04:14:18.

Geography

null