ReviewJournal of arrhythmia2017
Use of implantable and external loop recorders in syncope with unknown causes.
Review in Journal of arrhythmia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- 2025 Japanese Heart Rhythm Society / Japanese Circulation Society Consensus Statement on the Appropriate Use of Ambulatory and Wearable Electrocardiographs.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Implantable loop recorder in unexplained palpitations or syncope: A randomised study among young patients with structurally normal heart.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2022Article
- The diagnostic yield of implantable loop recorders stratified by indication: "real-world" use in a large academic hospital.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Article
- Imaging features of leadless cardiovascular devices.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gold standard for diagnosing syncope is to elucidate the symptom-electrocardiogram (ECG) correlation. The ECG recordings during syncope allow physicians to either confirm or exclude an arrhythmia as the mechanism of syncope. Many studies have investigated the use of internal loop recorder (ILR), while few studies have used external loop recorder (ELR) for patients with unexplained syncope. The aim of this review is to clarify the clinical usefulness of ILR and ELR in the diagnosis and management of patients with unexplained syncope. Many observational and four randomized control studies have shown that ILR for patients with unknown syncope is a useful tool for early diagnosis and improving diagnosis rate. ILR also provides important information on the mechanism of syncope and treatment strategy. However, there is no evidence of total mortality or quality of life improvements with ILR. The diagnostic yield of ELR in patients with syncope was similar to that with ILR within the same timeframe. Therefore, ELR could be considered for long-term ECG monitoring before a patient switches to using ILR. A systematic approach and selection of ECG monitoring tools reduces health care costs and improves the selection of patients for optimal treatment possibilities.
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.