ArticleJournal of biomedical research2020
A wearable real-time telemonitoring electrocardiogram device compared with traditional Holter monitoring.
Article in Journal of biomedical research, 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiorespiratory Sensors and Their Implications for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Detection: A Systematic Review.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2024Pooled it
- Measurement of 12-Lead ECG Using Multi-Orientation Electrodes on the Left Upper Arm in Healthy Subjects.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Development and Clinical Evaluation of a Wearable 12-Lead Electrocardiographic Platform with Automated ECG Analysis for Telemedicine Applications.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Analysis of Personalized Cardiovascular Drug Therapy: From Monitoring Technologies to Data Integration and Future Perspectives.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Development and Validation of a Real-Time Service Model for Noise Removal and Arrhythmia Classification Using Electrocardiogram Signals.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence-Based Technologies for the Diagnosis of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Arrhythmias are very common in the healthy populations as well as patients with cardiovascular diseases. Among them, atrial fibrillation (AF) and malignant ventricular arrhythmias are usually associated with some clinical events. Early diagnosis of arrhythmias, particularly AF and ventricular arrhythmias, is very important for the treatment and prognosis of patients. Holter is a gold standard commonly recommended for noninvasive detection of paroxysmal arrhythmia. However, it has some shortcomings such as fixed detection timings, delayed report and inability of remote real-time detection. To deal with such problems, we designed and applied a new wearable 72-hour triple-lead H3-electrocardiogram (ECG) device with a remote cloud-based ECG platform and an expert-supporting system. In this study, 31 patients were recruited and 24-hour synchronous ECG data by H3-ECG and Holter were recorded. In the H3-ECG group, ECG signals were transmitted using remote real-time modes, and confirmed reports were made by doctors in the remote expert-supporting system, while the traditional modes and detection systems were used in the Holter group. The results showed no significant differences between the two groups in 24-hour total heart rate (HR), averaged HR, maximum HR, minimum HR, premature atrial complexes (PACs) and premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) (
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.