ArticleBMJ open2025
Patient experiences with a smartwatch 1L-ECG versus traditional Holter monitoring for ambulatory cardiac rhythm monitoring: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore patients' experiences and perspectives on using a direct-to-consumer smartwatch with single-lead electrocardiography (1L-ECG) for ambulatory rhythm diagnostics in primary care.
designQualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis.
settingPrimary care patients referred for ambulatory rhythm monitoring in a diagnostic centre. PARTICIPANT: Eighteen adults with paroxysmal palpitations, of whom nine were female patients (50%), aged 32-85 (median 66) years.
interventionParticipants simultaneously wore a smartwatch with 1L-ECG capability (Withings ScanWatch) and a conventional Holter monitor for 7 days. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient experiences and perceived barriers and facilitators to smartwatch use for rhythm monitoring, reported after the monitoring period.
resultsPatients found the smartwatch more user-friendly and feasible than the Holter monitor. Difficulties included uncertainty about when to initiate recordings, challenges capturing brief episodes and anxiety triggered by automated algorithm outputs. Participants emphasised the importance of accessible healthcare support for interpretation and reassurance.
conclusionsThis study shows that smartwatch-based 1L-ECG monitoring is feasible and acceptable for ambulatory rhythm diagnostics in primary care. Prior to routine implementation, it is crucial to address the identified challenges: particularly anxiety related to algorithm results, uncertainty about when to record and accessible clinician support.
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.