ArticleJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2026
Comparing the Feasibility of S-Patch vs 24-Hour Holter in Frail Older People With Falls: Randomized Open-Label Crossover Pilot Study.
Article in JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies, 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: Falls commonly cause injuries in older adults and can present with syncope or presyncope. Typically, frail older adults with cognitive impairment are underrepresented in research and experience difficulty tolerating conventional ECG monitoring devices. S-Patch is a novel, lightweight dual-lead device designed to provide continuous ECG monitoring for up to 72 hours with minimal interference to daily activities. Objective: This study aimed primarily to evaluate the feasibility, tolerability, and adherence of the S-Patch compared with standard 24-hour Holter monitoring in older adults (aged ≥60 years) presenting with unwitnessed falls, syncope, or near-syncope, as assessed by wear duration, completion rates, and patient-reported experience. The secondary objective of this study was to assess device usability and compare arrhythmia detection rates between the devices in a real-world setting. Methods: This prospective, single-center, randomized, open-label, crossover feasibility pilot study was conducted from March 8, 2020, to February 28, 2023. Participants were randomized 1:1 into group A (Holter followed by S-Patch) or group B (S-Patch followed by Holter), enabling up to 4 days of continuous monitoring. Results: Seventy patients were enrolled, of whom 32 (45.7%) had cognitive impairment, and the majority were frail. Group A participants were older (86.9 vs 82.9 years) with higher use of dementia medications (6/35, 17.1% vs 3/35, 8.6%). Frailty was highly prevalent across the cohort, and fear of falling was significantly greater among frail patients (P=.04). Both devices were well tolerated, with no difference in overall device preference, but S-Patch enabled substantially longer monitoring durations compared to Holter. Mean S-Patch wear time exceeded 60 hours and was significantly longer when the device was applied first (68.8 vs 62.9 h; P=.04), suggesting acceptance and adherence. Importantly, tolerability was maintained in frail patients with cognitive impairment. Arrhythmia detection rates were observed as comparable, with both devices identifying one clinically significant arrhythmia, resulting in pacemaker implantation. Conclusions: S-Patch is a feasible, well-tolerated cardiac monitoring device in frail older adults and those with cognitive impairment. Compared with Holter, S-Patch supported longer continuous monitoring without compromising patient acceptability, an important consideration in real-world clinical practice.
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.