Trial reportScientific reports2025
Wearable ECG patch monitoring for 72 h is comparable to conventional Holter monitoring for 24 h to detect cardiogenic vertigo.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Cardiogenic vertigo: clinical characteristics and predictors of long-term prognosis.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Integrating Sensory Perception and Wearable Monitoring to Promote Healthy Aging: A New Frontier in Nutritional Personalization.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Heart rate dynamics in polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome: from heterogeneity to wearable digital phenotyping.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
- Atrial Fibrillation in COVID-19: Mechanisms, Clinical Impact, and Monitoring Strategies.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We sought to compare the diagnostic efficacy of a 72-hour wearable electrocardiography (ECG) patch monitoring with a conventional 24-hour Holter monitoring for the detection of cardiogenic vertigo. We conducted a prospective multicenter study that recruited 47 patients suspected of cardiogenic vertigo in four referral-based university hospitals between November 2019 and April 2022. Patients received simultaneous ambulatory ECG recordings using a 72-hour wearable ECG patch monitoring and a conventional 24-hour Holter monitor. The primary outcome was the detection rate of arrhythmia events during the entire wearing period. The secondary outcomes included device preference and factors affecting the detection of cardiogenic vertigo. During the 72-hour monitoring period, there was no significant difference in the overall detection rate of arrhythmia events between the wearable patch and conventional Holter monitoring (10 of 47 [21.3%] vs. 8 of 47 [17.0%], p = .500) Most patients (46/47) favored a wearable patch over Holter monitoring. The effectiveness of wearable ECG patch monitoring was comparable to conventional Holter monitoring in detecting cardiogenic vertigo. With its extended monitoring capability and patient preference, wearable patch monitoring holds promise as an alternative method for the diagnosis of cardiogenic vertigo. Limitations of this study include small sample size and selection bias.
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.