ArticleClinical cardiology2026
Comparative Clinical Outcomes Across Ambulatory Cardiac Monitoring Modalities.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComparative effectiveness data across ambulatory cardiac monitoring (ACM) modalities are limited.
objectiveTo confirm and extend comparative findings across ACM modalities and vendors in commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries without prior arrhythmia.
methodsRetrospective study using Optum Research Database. Adults ≥ 18 years with first ACM use between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2022 were categorized as long-term continuous monitors (LTCM), Holter, external ambulatory event monitors (AEM), or mobile cardiac telemetry (MCT). Outcomes were arrhythmia diagnosis (90 days), repeat monitoring (180 days), cardiovascular events, hospitalization, emergency department [ED] visits, and costs (365 days). Inverse probability of treatment weighting used a specific LTCM (iRhythm Technologies, San Francisco, CA) as reference.
resultsAmong 352,782 patients (mean age 62.0 ± 17.1 years; 61% female), 25% received LTCM, 37% Holter, 20% AEM, and 18% MCT. Among LTCM users, 58% received iRhythm LTCM. Compared with this LTCM, Holter, MCT, and other LTCM had lower odds of arrhythmia diagnosis (IPTW-weighted ORs 0.50-0.95; p < 0.01); AEM did not differ. Repeat monitoring was higher for other LTCM, AEM, and Holter (IPTW-weighted ORs 1.99-2.77; p < 0.001); MCT did not differ. All other modalities had higher IPTW-weighted odds of cardiovascular events (ORs 1.10-1.66; p < 0.001), hospitalization (ORs 1.12-2.04; p < 0.001), ED visits (ORs 1.09-2.08; p < 0.001), and costs (IPTW-weighted cost ratios 1.03-1.28; p < 0.01).
conclusionsOutcomes differed across ACM modalities and vendors, confirming observations in other payer populations. A specific LTCM was associated with higher claims-based arrhythmia yield and lower repeat monitoring than most alternatives, and with lower hospitalization, health care utilization, and costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42886071What 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.