ArticleHeart rhythm O22020
Involving patients as key stakeholders in the design of cardiovascular implantable electronic device data dashboards: Implications for patient care.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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.
- The Life Experience of Patients after the Implantation of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices: A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Recommendations for sharing cardiovascular implantable electronic device data with patients based on clinician interviews.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Testing a Novel Design Framework for Patient-Facing Machine Learning-Based Predictions of Heart Failure Decompensation.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Clinician use of data elements from cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in clinical practice.Cardiovascular digital health journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData from remote monitoring (RM) of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) currently are not accessible to patients despite demand. The typical RM report contains multiple pages of data for trained technicians to read and interpret and requires a patient-centered approach to be curated to meet individual user needs.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to understand which RM data elements are important to patients and to gain design insights for displaying meaningful data in a digital dashboard.
methodsAdults with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers (PMs) participated in this 2-phase, user-centered design study. Phase 1 included a card-sorting activity to prioritize device data elements. Phase 2 included one-on-one design sessions to gather insights and feedback about a visual display (labels and icons).
resultsTwenty-nine adults (mean age 71.8 ± 11.6 years; 51.7% female; 89.7% white) participated. Priority data elements for both ICD and PM groups in phase 1 (n = 19) were related to cardiac episodes, device activity, and impedance values. Recommended replacement time for battery was high priority for the PM group but not the ICD group. Phase 2 (n = 10) revealed that patients would like descriptive, nontechnical terms to depict the data and icons that are intuitive and informative.
conclusionThis user-centered design study demonstrated that patients with ICDs and PMs were able to prioritize specific data from a comprehensive list of data elements that they had never seen before. This work contributes to the goal of sharing RM data with patients in a way that optimizes the RM feature of CIEDs for improving patient outcomes and clinical care.
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.