ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2024
Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices using smart device interface versus radiofrequency-based interface: A systematic review.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2024. 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.
- Clinical Outcomes on Remote Monitoring Compliance in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Veterans health administration national cardiac device surveillance program: Structured, centralized remote monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices to improve quality of care.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Review
- Smartphone App-Based Remote Monitoring Challenges in Patients with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillators-A Multicenter Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices using smart device interface versus radiofrequency-based interface: A systematic review.Journal of arrhythmia · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Guidelines recommended remote monitoring (RM) in managing patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices. In recent years, smart device (phone or tablet) monitoring-based RM (SM-RM) was introduced. This study aims to systematically review SM-RM versus bedside monitor RM (BM-RM) using radiofrequency in terms of compliance, connectivity, and episode transmission time. Methods: We conducted a systematic review, searching three international databases from inception until July 2023 for studies comparing SM-RM (intervention group) versus BM-RM (control group). Results: Two matched studies (21 978 patients) were retrieved (SM-RM arm: 9642 patients, BM-RM arm: 12 336 patients). There is significantly higher compliance among SM-RM patients compared with BM-RM patients in both pacemaker and defibrillator patients. Manyam et al. found that more SM-RM patients than BM-RM patients transmitted at least once (98.1% vs. 94.3%, Conclusion: SM-RM is a step in the right direction, with good compliance, connectivity, and shorter episode transmission time, empowering patients to be in control of their health. Further research on cost-effectiveness and long-term clinical outcomes can be carried out.
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.