SynthesisOpen heart2025
Value of implantable loop recorders in detecting atrial fibrillation for stroke prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Open heart, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThough undiagnosed in many patients, especially those with cryptogenic stroke, atrial fibrillation (AF) is a key cause of ischaemic stroke. By allowing extended cardiac monitoring, implantable loop recorders (ILRs) may help enhance AF identification and secondary stroke prevention. Compared with standard therapy, this meta-analysis and systematic review assesses the effectiveness of ILRs in identifying AF and preventing recurrent stroke.
methodsWe searched Web of Science, Scopus, Embase and PubMed up to September 2024 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. Included were observational studies comparing ILR with conventional therapy in stroke or high-risk patients as well as randomised controlled trials (RCTs). AF detection, recurrent stroke and mortality were primary outcomes. Random-effects models were used to compute pooled HRs with 95% CIs. We looked at publication bias and heterogeneity.
resultsIncluded were 12 studies with four RCTs and eight cohorts. Compared with controls, ILR use was linked to a much greater AF detection rate (HR=3.13, 95% CI 1.97 to 4.97). Embolic events fell insignificantly (HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.02) and mortality showed no change (HR=1.01, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.31). Subgroup analysis showed more AF detection in RCTs than in cohort studies (p=0.035). Although no major publishing bias was found, heterogeneity was considerable.
conclusionBy greatly enhancing AF detection in patients who had a stroke and at high risk, ILRs did not help to prevent secondary strokes. Therefore, they did not have enough efficacy in lowering recurrent stroke and death. Larger, more comprehensive studies are still required to clarify long-term therapeutic advantages and maximise patient selection. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251051946.
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.