Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38801649›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical systems2024

Comparison Between a Single-Lead ECG Garment Device and a Holter Monitor: A Signal Quality Assessment.

Luca Neri, Ivan Corazza, Matt T Oberdier, Jessica Lago, Ilaria Gallelli, Arrigo F G Cicero, Igor Diemberger, Alessandro Orro, Amir Beker, Nazareno Paolocci and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

12 authors.

Luca Neri *Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, 1721 East Madison Street Traylor Hall 901, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Ivan Corazza *Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Matt T Oberdier *Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, 1721 East Madison Street Traylor Hall 901, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Jessica LagoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Ilaria GallelliDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Arrigo F G CiceroDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Igor DiembergerDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Alessandro OrroInstitute for Biomedical Technologies, National Research Council (ITB-CNR), Segrate, Italy.
Amir BekerAccurate Group S.p.A., L'Aquila, Italy.
Nazareno PaolocciDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, 1721 East Madison Street Traylor Hall 901, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Henry R HalperinDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins University, 1721 East Madison Street Traylor Hall 901, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Claudio BorghiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. claudio.borghi@unibo.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wearable electronics are increasingly common and useful as health monitoring devices, many of which feature the ability to record a single-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). However, recording the ECG commonly requires the user to touch the device to complete the lead circuit, which prevents continuous data acquisition. An alternative approach to enable continuous monitoring without user initiation is to embed the leads in a garment. This study assessed ECG data obtained from the YouCare device (a novel sensorized garment) via comparison with a conventional Holter monitor. A cohort of thirty patients (age range: 20-82 years; 16 females and 14 males) were enrolled and monitored for twenty-four hours with both the YouCare device and a Holter monitor. ECG data from both devices were qualitatively assessed by a panel of three expert cardiologists and quantitatively analyzed using specialized software. Patients also responded to a survey about the comfort of the YouCare device as compared to the Holter monitor. The YouCare device was assessed to have 70% of its ECG signals as "Good", 12% as "Acceptable", and 18% as "Not Readable". The R-wave, independently recorded by the YouCare device and Holter monitor, were synchronized within measurement error during 99.4% of cardiac cycles. In addition, patients found the YouCare device more comfortable than the Holter monitor (comfortable 22 vs. 5 and uncomfortable 1 vs. 18, respectively). Therefore, the quality of ECG data collected from the garment-based device was comparable to a Holter monitor when the signal was sufficiently acquired, and the garment was also comfortable.

Indexed as

ElectrocardiographyElectrocardiography, AmbulatoryAdultAgedAged, 80 and overClothingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedWearable Electronic DevicesYoung AdultElectrocardiogramHolter monitorSignal qualityWearable devices

Identifiers

PMID38801649
PMCPMC11129969

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.