ArticleHeart and vessels2026
The diagnostic value of the syncope-to-ILR interval on syncope etiology.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveImplantable loop recorders (ILRs) are useful in determining syncope etiology. We observed a higher diagnostic rate in patients receiving early implantation. We hypothesized that shorter implantation times were associated with higher diagnostic rates and investigated how the syncope-to-ILR interval affected diagnosis.
methodsMedical data of patients at our hospital with syncope of unknown etiology who received ILRs between January 2017 and July 2023 were analyzed in relation to the date of syncope, first visit, and ILR use. Patients were classified into event and non-event groups according to whether ILRs revealed the syncope etiology.
resultsWe examined the medical records of 113 patients (median age, 72.6 ± 13.1 years). Syncope etiologies were identified in 34 (30%) patients. We identified 37 (16-58) syncope-to-ILR days. The event group had significantly shorter syncope-to-ILR days (event group, 28 days; non-event group, 44 days, p = 0.001) and syncope-to-first visit days (1.5 vs. 13 days, respectively; p = 0.00). To improve diagnostic rates, a receiver operating characteristic curve indicated cut-off values for syncope-to-ILR days and syncope-to-first visit days of 17 and 12 days (area under the curve, 0.69 and 0.74), respectively. Patients accompanied by family or friends underwent ILR placement significantly earlier than unaccompanied patients.
conclusionThe number of syncope-to-ILR days significantly affected syncope diagnosis, indicating that early hospital attendance following syncope is critical. Public awareness campaigns and the presence of family or friends may be useful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40990999What 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.