SynthesisCurrent cardiology reports2023
Long-Term Remote vs. Conventional Monitoring of Pacemakers: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Current cardiology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Remote monitoring of leadless pacemakers using a novel conductive telemetry communication method.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Observational
- The impact of patient-facing digital health interventions on patient safety outcomes: a meta-analysis of meta-analyses.Oxford open digital health · 2026Review
- Comparison Between In-Office Versus Remote Follow-Up Costs in Patients with Pacemakers and Reimbursed Transportation in a Portuguese District Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewRemote monitoring (RM) is the standard of care for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), particularly pacemakers. However, the long-term outcomes of RM versus conventional monitoring (CM) of pacemakers and its effectiveness in reducing in-office (IO) visits for device reprogramming require elucidation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the RM and CM of pacemakers over a long-term follow-up. RECENT
findingsWe systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RM and CM of pacemakers with at least 12 months of follow-up. Binary endpoints were pooled with risk ratios (RRs), whereas continuous outcomes were computed using mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs). Heterogeneity was assessed using I
Indexed as
Identifiers
37751037What 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.