Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30741360›Full record

Trial reportJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2020

A randomized trial evaluating the accuracy of AF detection by four external ambulatory ECG monitors compared to permanent pacemaker AF detection.

Will Eysenck, Nick Freemantle, Neil Sulke

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Materials Advances in Devices for Heart Disease Interventions.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Will EysenckEastbourne General Hospital, East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, East Sussex, UK. william.eysenck@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4159-6392
Nick FreemantleUniversity College London, London, UK.
Neil SulkeEastbourne General Hospital, East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, East Sussex, UK.
East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSeveral external cardiac monitors (ECMs) have recently been developed. These have never been compared to 'gold standard' monitoring with concurrently implanted DDDRP pacemakers. The accuracy of AF detection of Zio XT Monitor (ZM), NUUBO Vest (NV) and Carnation Ambulatory Monitor (CAM) compared with Novacor 'R' Test 4 (RT) in patients (pts) with DDDRP PPM advanced Holters as the comparator, was evaluated.

methodsTwenty-one pts. with AF and a DDDRP PPM, each acting as their own control subject, wore every ECM for 2 weeks in randomized order. PPM downloads were performed at application and removal. Device ECGs were compared for AF burden and individual AF episodes with PPM Holters. Pt acceptability, wear time, costs and time expenditure were evaluated.

resultsRT AF burden was less accurate than the ZM, NV or CAM (p < 0.05). Probability of inaccurate AF diagnosis was higher for RT than ZM or CAM OR 12.31 and 5.85, respectively (p = 0.025 and p = 0.042). ZM wear time was longer than the RT: 307 h vs. 224 h; p = 0.02. Acceptability was greater for CAM than RT (1.86 ± 2.63 compared with 0.57 ± 1.17 for CAM; p = 0.024). All ECMs were more expensive than RT (p < 0.00001).

conclusionsAll new ECMs were more expensive than the RT system; however, the ZM, NV and CAM are all more accurate than current standard practice RT device in AF burden assessment. The RT is more likely to give inaccurate diagnoses than ZM or CAM. This may have clinical implications.

Indexed as

Pacemaker, ArtificialAgedAtrial FibrillationElectrocardiography, AmbulatoryFemaleHumansMalePatient Acceptance of Health CareSensitivity and SpecificityAtrial fibrillation detectionExternal cardiac monitoringPermanent pacemaker

Identifiers

PMID30741360
OpenAlexW2912211338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.