Correction for ‘patient experiences with a smartwatch 1L-ECG versus traditional holter monitoring for ambulatory cardiac rhythm monitoring: a qualitative study’
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring · Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring · Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Karregat EPM, Vooijs P, Wierda E, et al Patient experiences with a smartwatch 1L-ECG vs traditional Holter monitoring for ambulatory cardiac rhythm monitoring: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2025;0:e101557. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025–1 01 557
This article has been corrected since it was published online. Unfortunately, the alignment of table 1 was not displayed correctly, whereby the numbers presented in the second column did not correspond to the correct corresponding characteristics presented in the first column. With this correction, this issue has been resolved.
Here below, you find the correct table: