ArticleCureus2025
A Survey on the Perceptions of Puerto Rican Cardiologists on the Use of Smartwatches and Implantable Loop Recorders.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A variety of portable monitoring devices have become available and have proven to be of use in the monitoring of atrial fibrillation (AF). Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) have been shown to have great sensitivity in recording arrhythmia events in long-term arrhythmia monitoring. Recently, smartwatches have gained prominence as an unobtrusive alternative for heart rhythm monitoring. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the perception of Puerto Rican cardiologists on the use of these devices in the management of AF, particularly when compared to more established long-term devices like ILRs. We administered a survey questionnaire to cardiologists currently practicing in Puerto Rico. Demographic information was collected through participant self-reporting. Participants were defined into subgroups as follows: having a cardiac subspecialty, being associated with academia, years of practicing as a cardiologist, and cardiologist age. Commonly identified limitations to smartwatch use in cardiac monitoring were device cost (82% of respondents) and patient's technical knowledge (81.3% of respondents). There was a tendency to prefer the use of ILRs over smartwatches in higher risk AF patients (62.5% of respondents). The main perceived benefit of these devices is their capacity to provide continuous and unobtrusive rhythm monitoring (89.6% of respondents). Attitudes towards smartwatches and ILRs were evaluated through Likert scales (1 Strongly Agree - 5 Strongly Disagree), and the non-parametric approach was chosen for their assessment. The unadjusted relationship of attitudes within these defined subgroups was evaluated through the two-sample Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test. Non-subspecialized cardiologists (mean Likert Scale answer 2.19
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.