Trial reportScientific reports2026
Randomized trial of smartphone application and bed sensor for atrial fibrillation detection in high-risk patients.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05351775 (Cardiovascular Research Consortium - a Randomized Prospective Trial to Assess Low Workload Concept for the Detection of Silent Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this 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.
Cardiovascular Research Consortium - a Randomized Prospective Trial to Assess Low Workload Concept for the Detection of Silent Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and Atrial Fibrillation Burden in Patients At High Risk of AF and Stroke
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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This two-arm single-center exploratory randomized controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of prolonged rhythm monitoring in atrial fibrillation (AF) detection after an invasive cardiac procedure. Altogether 150 patients were enrolled. In the intervention group (IG), a bed sensor (EMFIT QS) and twice-daily smartphone recordings (CardioSignal app) were used, followed by a 12-lead ECG and a continuous three-to-seven-day ECG monitoring if alerts occurred. The control group (CG) received usual care. Overall, 78 patients were assigned to the IG and 72 to CG. During the three-month follow-up, AF was detected in 6/78 (7.7%) patients in the IG and in 0/72 (0.0%) in the CG (absolute risk difference 7.7%, 95% CI 1.8–13.6%, p = 0.029). After exclusion of patients who withdrew before the 3-month follow-up, 33/68 (48.5%) patients had alarms not leading to ECG-verified AF diagnosis, indicating that the current approach, in its present form, is not suitable for routine clinical implementation. Future studies should concentrate on minimizing alarms not leading to AF diagnosis when developing these novel non-ECG-based technologies. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05351775, 2022/04/28.
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.