Trial reportPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2025
Does a Smartphone-Based ECG Recording System in Pediatric Patients With Palpitations Improve Diagnostic Yield?
Trial report in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Wearable and Portable Electrocardiographic Devices as Modern Cardiac Telemetry Solutions in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPalpitations in children are common and obtaining symptom-rhythm correlation is diagnostic, but challenging to obtain. The AliveCor KardiaMobile monitor is a smartphone-based single-lead ECG event recorder with limited study in children. We compared using this smartphone recorder to a conventional (Cardiocall) event recorder.
methodsWe performed a prospective, randomized study of children presenting to pediatric cardiology for investigation of palpitations who require an event recorder for symptom-rhythm correlation. Patients were randomized to the smartphone or conventional recorder for rhythm documentation for 3 months or 4 weeks, respectively. Diagnostic tracings were defined as one pathologic arrhythmia or three sinus rhythm tracings. We assessed tracing quality, diagnoses obtained, and time to diagnosis between groups. Patients were surveyed to assess perceptions of using the devices.
resultsOne hundred participants were enrolled and randomized to 50 in each group. Diagnostic tracings were achieved in 51% versus 44% (p = 0.525) in the smartphone versus conventional group at means of 23.7 (SD 36.4) versus 11.5 (SD 15.2) days, p = 0.181. Participants who used the smartphone monitor were more likely to transmit recordings (70% vs. 49%, p = 0.037) and more often willing to use the device again (87% vs. 42%, p = 0.015), with no differences between groups in finding episodes easy to record (74% vs. 100%, p = 0.15), easy to transmit (70% vs. 46%, p = 0.26), or overall satisfaction (83% vs. 58%, p = 0.13).
conclusionSmartphone monitor devices provided similar diagnostic yield to conventional monitors in children. Families who used the smartphone monitor were more willing to use the device again.
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.