Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33946269›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Validation of Adhesive Single-Lead ECG Device Compared with Holter Monitoring among Non-Atrial Fibrillation Patients.

Soonil Kwon, So-Ryoung Lee, Eue-Keun Choi, Hyo-Jeong Ahn, Hee-Seok Song, Young-Shin Lee, Seil Oh

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06896734 (Evaluation of the mobiCARE™ ECG Monitoring System Electrode Placement Positioning Limits in a Prospective, Non-Randomized, Single-Center U.S. Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT06896734 completednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of the mobiCARE™ ECG Monitoring System Electrode Placement Positioning Limits in a Prospective, Non-Randomized, Single-Center U.S. Study

TypeobservationalSponsorSeers Technology Co., Ltd.Ran2025 to 2025Enrolled49ConditionsECG MonitoringArmsEvaluation of the ECG signal in the nominal location and in three alternate positions
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Screening and diagnosis of atrial fibrillation using wearable devices.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Advancing Digital Medicine with Wearables in the Wild.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Soonil KwonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 03080, Korea.
So-Ryoung LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Eue-Keun ChoiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Hyo-Jeong AhnDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Hee-Seok SongSeers Technology Co., Ltd., Seongnam-si 13558, Korea.
Young-Shin LeeSeers Technology Co., Ltd., Seongnam-si 13558, Korea.
Seil OhDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul 03080, Korea.
Seoul National University Hospital · KRSeoul National University · KR

Funding

The Korea government (the Ministry of Science and ICT, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and En-ergy, the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) 202013B14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are few reports on head-to-head comparisons of electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring between adhesive single-lead and Holter devices for arrhythmias other than atrial fibrillation (AF). This study aimed to compare 24 h ECG monitoring between the two devices in patients with general arrhythmia. Twenty-nine non-AF patients with a workup of pre-diagnosed arrhythmias or suspicious arrhythmic episodes were evaluated. Each participant wore both devices simultaneously, and the cardiac rhythm was monitored for 24 h. Selective ECG parameters were compared between the two devices. Two cardiologists independently compared the diagnoses of each device. The two most frequent monitoring indications were workup of premature atrial contractions (41.4%) and suspicious arrhythmia-related symptoms (37.9%). The single-lead device had a higher noise burden than the Holter device (0.04 ± 0.05% vs. 0.01 ± 0.01%,

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationElectrocardiography, AmbulatoryAdhesivesElectrocardiographyHumansMonitoring, AmbulatoryAdhesivescardiac arrhythmiaelectrocardiogramwearable device

Identifiers

PMID33946269
PMCPMC8124998
OpenAlexW3159525426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.