SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Efficacy of wearable devices detecting pulmonary congestion in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Chest-Worn Sensors in Cardiac Assessment: Technologies, Advantages, and Limitations.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Heart failure (HF) hospitalizations are prognostically significant. Implantable hemodynamic monitors detect early congestion but are invasive and costly, with no clear mortality benefit. Wearable devices offer a non-invasive alternative for monitoring congestion. This meta-analysis examines the efficacy of wearable devices in reducing HF hospitalizations and mortality compared to standard care. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were searched for trials comparing wearable device-guided care with standard HF treatment. Outcomes included hospitalisation for HF, worsening HF events (hospitalisation or emergency department visit for HF) and all-cause mortality. Total (first and recurrent) event meta-analyses were performed using random effect models. Results: Four studies met inclusion criteria, including 958 patients who were enrolled either at the time of or within 10 days of discharge from a hospitalization for HF. Wearable device-guided care resulted in a 41% reduction in hospitalisations for HF (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.41-0.87, Conclusion: Wearable devices are a promising non-invasive strategy for managing high-risk patients, particularly when transitioning care from acute to community settings.. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024607770, identifier PROSPERO CRD42024607770.
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.