ArticleJMIR research protocols2026
Economic Evaluations of Algorithm-Enabled Remote Monitoring of Adults With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: Protocol for a Systematic Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are crucial in managing various cardiac conditions, but their monitoring poses considerable challenges. Algorithm-enabled remote monitoring of these devices has emerged as a promising solution to enhance patient outcomes and potentially reduce health care expenditures; however, its economic impact remains underexplored. Objective: This systematic review protocol aims to review and synthesize the existing evidence on the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of algorithm-enabled remote monitoring for CIEDs in patients with or at risk of heart failure. Methods: The search of literature will be performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, with supplementary searches in the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. This protocol is reported in accordance with the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 statement, and the completed review will be reported following the PRISMA 2020 statement. Results: Following database searching and deduplication, 3108 records were retrieved; 731 (23.5%) duplicates were removed, leaving 2377 (76.5%) records for title and abstract screening. The review will identify and synthesize economic evaluations of algorithm-enabled remote monitoring in adults with CIEDs, summarizing reported costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness results. Methodological quality, risk of bias, and sources of heterogeneity across studies will be assessed. Conclusions: The findings of this review may help inform health care providers, policymakers, and other stakeholders by clarifying the current economic evidence on these monitoring systems, informing adoption decisions, and identifying areas requiring further research.
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.