Summary of findings for the main comparison. Implantable loop recorder vs conventional diagnostic workup: Aetiologic diagnosis
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Implantable loop recorder probably leads to lower aetiologic diagnosis compared with conventional diagnostic workup (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Implantable loop recorder vs conventional diagnostic workup Aetiologic diagnosis · people with unexplained recurrent syncope Summary of findings for the main comparison. Implantable loop recorder probably leads to lower aetiologic diagnosis compared with conventional diagnostic workup (moderate certainty). Implantable loop recorder versus conventional diagnostic workup for unexplained recurrent syncope (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.61 [0.54, 0.68] | 4 studies · 579 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implantable loop recorder versus conventional diagnostic workup for unexplained recurrent syncope 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.