ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2014
Trials of implantable monitoring devices in heart failure: which design is optimal?
Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of remote pulmonary artery pressure estimating in heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Implantable devices for heart failure monitoring: the CardioMEMS™ system.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2019Article
- Implantable devices to monitor patients with heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2018Review
- Novel Endpoints for Heart Failure Clinical Trials.Current heart failure reports · 2017Review
- [Implantable sensors for outpatient assessment of ventricular filling pressure in advanced heart failure : Which telemonitoring design is optimal?]Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2016Review
- Evolution from electrophysiologic to hemodynamic monitoring: the story of left atrial and pulmonary artery pressure monitors.Frontiers in physiology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 11 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Implantable monitoring devices have been developed to detect early evidence of heart failure (HF) decompensation, with the hypothesis that early detection might enable clinicians to commence therapy sooner than would otherwise be possible, and potentially to reduce the rate of hospitalization. In addition to the usual challenges inherent to device trials (such as the difficulty of double-blinding and potential for bias), studies of implantable monitoring devices present unique difficulties because they involve assessment of therapeutic end points for diagnostic devices. Problems include the lack of uniform approaches to treatment in study protocols for device alerts or out-of-range values, and the requirement of levels of evidence traditionally associated with therapeutic devices to establish effectiveness and safety. In this Review, the approaches used to deal with these issues are discussed, including the use of objective primary end points with blinded adjudication, identical duration of follow-up and number of encounters for patients in active monitoring and control groups, and treatment recommendations between groups that are consistent with international guidelines. Remote monitoring devices hold promise for reducing the rate of hospitalization among patients with HF. However, optimization of regulatory approaches and clinical trial design is needed to facilitate further evaluation of the effectiveness of combining health information technology and medical devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.