ArticleCardiovascular digital health journal2021
The use of a traditional nonlooping event monitor versus a loan-based program with a smartphone ECG device in the pediatric cardiology clinic.
Article in Cardiovascular digital health journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Wearable and Portable Electrocardiographic Devices as Modern Cardiac Telemetry Solutions in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2021
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A smartphone-enabled device has been developed that provides a single-lead electrocardiogram using a portable monitor. The increase in direct-to-consumer medical devices may lead to health disparities affecting members of socially disadvantaged populations. Objective: Here we provide a single center's experience in the use of this device in a pediatric cardiology clinic using a loan-based program. We also compare it to retrospective data from patients who received a traditional nonlooping event monitor. Methods: Forty AliveCor Kardia monitor devices were purchased with grant support from the South Carolina TeleHealth Alliance. The devices were provided between June 2018 and August 2019 to patients presenting to the pediatric cardiology clinic who would have otherwise received a nonlooping event monitor. A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients who were given a MicroER nonlooping event monitor between May and December of 2017. Results: Over a 15-month period, 65 patients were given the smartphone device. A total of 692 tracings were recorded by patients with 9 abnormal recordings. Of the devices expected to be returned, 35 devices have been returned to clinic (54%). Over an 8-month period, 61 patients received the traditional event monitors, accounting for a total of 142 transmissions with 3 abnormal transmissions. Conclusion: Our results reveal adequate use of the device with reliable tracings and show more frequent utilization of the smartphone-enabled device. Utilization of these devices in a loan-based program may improve access to care with improved methods to ensure return of the devices.
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.