Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37921865›Full record

ReviewJMIR cardio2023

Characterizing Real-World Implementation of Consumer Wearables for the Detection of Undiagnosed Atrial Fibrillation in Clinical Practice: Targeted Literature Review.

Julie K Simonson, Misty Anderson, Cate Polacek, Erika Klump, Saira N Haque

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR cardio, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julie K Simonson *Pfizer Inc, New York City, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9494-9167
Misty AndersonPremier Inc, Charlotte, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1855-9686
Cate PolacekPremier Inc, Charlotte, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7352-9325
Erika KlumpPremier Inc, Charlotte, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6265-6211
Saira N Haque *Pfizer Inc, New York City, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8866-9005
Premier Research Group · USPfizer (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF), the most common cardiac arrhythmia, is often undiagnosed because of lack of awareness and frequent asymptomatic presentation. As AF is associated with increased risk of stroke, early detection is clinically relevant. Several consumer wearable devices (CWDs) have been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for irregular heart rhythm detection suggestive of AF. However, recommendations for the use of CWDs for AF detection in clinical practice, especially with regard to pathways for workflows and clinical decisions, remain lacking.

objectiveWe conducted a targeted literature review to identify articles on CWDs characterizing the current state of wearable technology for AF detection, identifying approaches to implementing CWDs into the clinical workflow, and characterizing provider and patient perspectives on CWDs for patients at risk of AF.

methodsPubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, UpToDate Clinical Reference, and DynaMed were searched for articles in English published between January 2016 and July 2023. The searches used predefined Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms, keywords, and search strings. Articles of interest were specifically on CWDs; articles on ambulatory monitoring tools, tools available by prescription, or handheld devices were excluded. Search results were reviewed for relevancy and discussed among the authors for inclusion. A qualitative analysis was conducted and themes relevant to our study objectives were identified.

resultsA total of 31 articles met inclusion criteria: 7 (23%) medical society reports or guidelines, 4 (13%) general reviews, 5 (16%) systematic reviews, 5 (16%) health care provider surveys, 7 (23%) consumer or patient surveys or interviews, and 3 (10%) analytical reports. Despite recognition of CWDs by medical societies, detailed guidelines regarding CWDs for AF detection were limited, as was the availability of clinical tools. A main theme was the lack of pragmatic studies assessing real-world implementation of CWDs for AF detection. Clinicians expressed concerns about data overload; potential for false positives; reimbursement issues; and the need for clinical tools such as care pathways and guidelines, preferably developed or endorsed by professional organizations. Patient-facing challenges included device costs and variability in digital literacy or technology acceptance.

conclusionsThis targeted literature review highlights the lack of a comprehensive body of literature guiding real-world implementation of CWDs for AF detection and provides insights for informing additional research and developing appropriate tools and resources for incorporating these devices into clinical practice. The results should also provide an impetus for the active involvement of medical societies and other health care stakeholders in developing appropriate tools and resources for guiding the real-world use of CWDs for AF detection. These resources should target clinicians, patients, and health care systems with the goal of facilitating clinician or patient engagement and using an evidence-based approach for establishing guidelines or frameworks for administrative workflows and patient care pathways.

Indexed as

arrhythmiasatrial fibrillationclinical workflowconsumer wearable devicesmobile phoneremote patient monitoringsmartwatchesvirtual carewearables

Identifiers

PMID37921865
PMCPMC10656655
OpenAlexW4387108993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.