Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29773575›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2018

Measuring Physical Activity With Implanted Cardiac Devices: A Systematic Review.

Lindsey Rosman, Rachel Lampert, Samuel F Sears, Matthew M Burg

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic reduced active time in patients with implanted cardiac devices.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Comparative Analysis of Physical Activity DetectedFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lindsey RosmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT lindsey.rosman@yale.edu.
Rachel LampertDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Samuel F SearsDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
Matthew M BurgDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical activity is predictive of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, yet it is not regularly assessed in routine care. Current-generation cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, however, continuously monitor patient activity through a built-in accelerometer, which provides new opportunities to remotely assess patient activity, detect changes in clinical status, and incorporate these data in risk stratification models. This review critically examines the literature on device-measured physical activity (D-PA), with a focus on identifying methodological issues that may affect interpretation of study results. METHODS AND

resultsWe conducted a systematic review of D-PA studies published from January 1 1995 to December 30 2017, identifying 29 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 5 of which were validation reports. Few technical details about D-PA sensors are reported, and procedures for analyzing and interpreting D-PA data are heterogeneous. Trends in D-PA over time and associations with clinical outcomes were reported by 22 studies, and in 7 studies, D-PA was combined with other device parameters in risk stratification models, demonstrating modest-to-good sensitivity in predicting acute heart failure decompensation, hospitalization, and mortality.

conclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that D-PA may be useful for assessing physical activity and predicting clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices when combined with other device parameters. Future work must address challenges related to D-PA data measurement, interpretation, and generalizability to support expanded clinical applications of this technology.

Indexed as

Cardiac Resynchronization TherapyCardiac Resynchronization Therapy DevicesDefibrillators, ImplantableExerciseActigraphyAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildElectric CountershockFemaleHealth StatusHeart FailureHumansMaleaccelerometercardiovascular implantable electronic devicedevice‐derived activityexerciseimplantable cardioverter‐defibrillatorphysical activity

Identifiers

PMID29773575
PMCPMC6015387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.