ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Wearable Devices for Quantifying Atrial Fibrillation Burden: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital Health Technologies for Risk Factor Management and Secondary Prevention After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond burden metrics: Wearable photoplethysmography-derived spatiotemporal progression of atrial fibrillation linked to clinical outcomes.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Lifestyle modification in atrial fibrillation: Mechanisms, phenotypes and ablation outcomes.Experimental physiology · 2026Review
- Atrial Fibrillation Screening Driven by Monitoring Technologies: Reducing Stroke Burden in Asian Populations.JACC. Asia · 2025Article
- Continuous smartwatch monitoring after atrial fibrillation ablation: feasibility of burden estimation and association with quality of life.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common supraventricular arrhythmia and is associated with an impaired prognosis. Studies using implantable cardiac monitors suggest that this association is closely linked to AF burden, defined as the percentage of time spent in AF. Consequently, there is a growing need for affordable and comfortable alternative devices, such as wearables, capable of reliably monitoring AF burden in patients with AF.
methodsMajor electronic databases were searched for studies comparing AF burden quantification using wearables and reference ECG monitoring methods. A Bayesian approach was adopted for the final analysis.
resultsSix studies, including a total of 448 patients and 36,978 h of valid simultaneous recordings, were analyzed. Bayesian analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between wearables and reference methods in AF burden quantification. The mean error was 1% (95% CrIs: -4% to 7%). Similar findings were observed in the subgroup analysis of studies assessing only smartwatches. Between-study heterogeneity was low, and no evidence of publication bias was detected.
conclusionOur analysis suggests that AF burden quantification using wearables is comparable to reference ECG monitoring methods. These findings support the potential role of wearables in clinical practice, particularly for research and prognostic purposes. However, more studies are needed to determine whether the observed statistical equivalence translates to clinical significance, thereby supporting the widespread use of wearables in the assessment of rhythm control therapeutic strategies.
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.