ArticleHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2015
[Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Is remote monitoring obligatory?].
Article in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe possibilities of telemonitoring (TM) of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) have been rapidly improving over the last few years. Numerous studies have examined the effects of this development on the follow-up care of ICD patients.
objectivesTechnical implementation and safety of ICD telemonitoring. Effects on the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias, the management of cardiac insufficiency patients and morbidity as well as mortality. Illustration of patient acceptance and cost-benefit assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe current research situation regarding TM of ICDs is analyzed and the available evidence for the postulated advantages in the follow-up care of ICD patients are discussed. The current treatment guidelines and recommendations for implementation of TM in daily clinical praxis are presented. RESULTS AND
conclusionsTM offers the possibility of faster reaction times to arrhythmias, cardiac decompensation and ICD malfunctions. At the same time, the outpatient follow-ups can be reduced without negatively affecting safety, quality of life or patient acceptance. TM has the potential to cost-neutrally improve the safety of ICD therapy and could lead to optimized management of heart insufficiency patients, while reducing morbidity and mortality. Following the evidence of these benefits as shown in numerous studies, TM has already been included in the current therapy guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25900214What 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.