ArticleClinical cardiology2024
Physician Preferences in Using Novel Digital Devices for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation-A DAS-CAM III Survey.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2024. 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.
- Understanding patient preferences, experiences and engagement with ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Author's Reply to "Digital Devices for Arrhythmia Detection: What Is Still Missing?"Clinical cardiology · 2025Article
- Digital Devices for Arrhythmia Detection: What Is Still Missing?Clinical cardiology · 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
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimA recent European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) practical guide provides guidance on the use of novel digital devices for heart rhythm analysis using either electrocardiogram (ECG) or photoplethysmography (PPG) technology for the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF). This survey assesses physicians' preferences to use digital devices in patients with possible AF and their impact on clinical decision-making. METHODS AND
resultsParticipants of the DAS-CAM III initiated and distributed an online survey assessing physician preferences in using digital devices for the management of AF in different clinical scenarios. A total of 505 physicians (median age: 38 [IQR 33-46] years) from 30 countries completed the survey. A third of respondents were electrophysiologists, the others were cardiologists, cardiology residents, or general practitioners. Electrophysiologists were more likely to have experience with both ECG-based (92% vs. 68%, p < 0.001) and PPG-based (60% vs. 34%, p < 0.001) digital devices. The initial diagnostic approach to each scenario (symptomatic low-risk, symptomatic high-risk, or asymptomatic high-risk patient) was heterogeneous. Electrophysiologists preferred intermittent single-lead ECG monitoring to traditional Holter ECGs to screen for AF. Both electrophysiologists and non-electrophysiologists would rarely use PPG-based devices to diagnose and screen for AF (8.2%-9.8%). Electrophysiologists and non-electrophysiologists use ECG-based technology to confirm PPG-documented tracings suggestive of AF.
conclusionWhile PPG-based digital devices are rarely used for diagnosis and screening for AF, intermittent ECG-based digital devices are beginning to be implemented in clinical practice. More education on the potential of novel digital devices is required to achieve diagnostic pathways as suggested by the EHRA practical guide.
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.