ReviewClinical cardiology2023
An overview of the electrocardiographic monitoring devices in sports cardiology: Between present and future.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adaptive Changes in Endurance Athletes: A Review of Molecular, Echocardiographic and Electrocardiographic Findings.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Observational Study on Cardiac Activity in Rescue Dogs with Holter and Electrocardiogram Methodologies during a Simulated Search Activity.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Monitoring Resistance Training in Real Time with Wearable Technology: Current Applications and Future Directions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- An overview of the electrocardiographic monitoring devices in sports cardiology: Between present and future.Clinical cardiology · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAthletes represent a mainly healthy population, which however could be considered at risk of major arrhythmic events, especially in case of undiagnosed cardiomyopathies. For this reason, the periodical sports medicine examination and the electrocardiography are essential tools in the cardiovascular screening, even though they do not always succeed in identifying rhythm disturbances, particularly when asymptomatic or rarely symptomatic. HYPOTHESIS: Prolonged cardiac monitoring often enables clinicians to stratify the arrhythmic risk and reach the diagnosis. The technological progress of the last decades has produced an always-increasing number of heart rhythm monitoring devices, starting from the 24-hour electrocardiogram Holter monitoring and ending with the wide world of wearable devices.
methodsIn the literature, the extreme utility of this equipment in the patients affected by cardiovascular diseases and in the general population is well established. On the contrary, athletes-based randomized trials or large-scale epidemiological studies targeting the frequency of cardiac symptoms and the use of cardiac monitoring are missing, while an ever-growing number of case series and small observational studies are flourishing in recent years.
resultsThe present review showcases the available electrocardiographic monitoring options, principally in the medical setting, listing their characteristics, their indications, their supporting evidence, and their general pros and cons.
conclusionsThe ultimate goal of this review is guiding physicians through the wide variety of heart rhythm monitoring options in the specific subfield of sports cardiology, when an arrhythmia is suspected in an athlete, to tailor the diagnostic process and favor the best diagnostic accuracy.
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.