Evidence Quality
Cross-source consensus on Evidence Quality from 1 sources and 5 claims.
1 sources · 5 claims
Evidence quality
Highlighted claims
- The review included 54 studies, consisting of 49 primary research studies and 5 reviews. — Understanding patient preferences, experiences and engagement with ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring: a scoping review
- All primary research studies were conducted in high-income countries. — Understanding patient preferences, experiences and engagement with ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring: a scoping review
- Most studies were cohort or case-control designs, making the evidence vulnerable to bias and confounding. — Understanding patient preferences, experiences and engagement with ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring: a scoping review
- The review did not conduct a risk-of-bias assessment because it aimed to map evidence rather than produce a definitive effectiveness synthesis. — Understanding patient preferences, experiences and engagement with ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring: a scoping review
- Questionnaires dominated the evidence base, but only about one-third were validated. — Understanding patient preferences, experiences and engagement with ambulatory heart rhythm monitoring: a scoping review