ArticleTranslational and clinical pharmacology2022
Lessons from a multicenter clinical trial with an approved wearable electrocardiogram: issues and practical considerations.
Article in Translational and clinical pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05182684 (A Multi-center Clinical Trial to Explore the Status of Collection and Transmission of Electrocardiogram Using a Wearable Device), which is not on this map. 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.
A Multi-center Clinical Trial to Explore the Status of Collection and Transmission of Electrocardiogram Using a Wearable Device
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploration of smart adherence-monitoring methods in vitamin D-deficient patients: A pilot feasibility clinical study.Clinical and translational science · 2023Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although wearable electrocardiograms (ECGs) are being increasingly applied in clinical settings, validation methods have not been standardized. As an exploratory evaluation, we performed a multicenter clinical trial implementing an approved wearable patch ECG. Healthy male adults were enrolled in 2 study centers. The approved ECGs were deployed for 6 hours, and pulse rates were measured independently with conventional pulse oximetry at selected time points for correlation analyses. The transmission status of the data was evaluated by heart rates and classified into valid, invalid, and missing. A total of 55 subjects (40 in center 1 and 15 in center 2) completed the study. Overall, 77.40% of heart rates were within the valid range. Invalid and missing data accounted for 1.42% and 21.23%, respectively. There were significant differences in valid and missing data between centers. The proportion of missing data in center 1 (24.77%) was more than twice center 2 (11.77%). Heart rates measured by the wearable ECG and conventional pulse oximetry showed a poor correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.0454). In conclusion, we evaluated the multicenter feasibility of implementing wearable ECGs. The results suggest that systems to mitigate multicenter discrepancies and remove artifacts should be implemented prior to performing a clinical trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05182684.
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.