|Study (yr) and Reference||Study Type||Number of Patients||Results|
|RAST (2001) (30)||Randomized controlled trial||60||Diagnosis in 55% of patients in the ICM arm compared with 19% in the control (p = 0.0014)|
|PICTURE (2011) (31)||Multicenter prospective||570||ICMs assisted in diagnosis in 30% of patients|
|Solbiati et al. (2016) (18)||Systematic review||579||Patients with ICM implantation experienced higher rates of diagnosis (RR: 0.61; CI: 0.54–0.68)|
|Krahn et al. (2003) (32)||Randomized crossover study||60||ICM strategy was more expensive per participant but cost lower per diagnosis when compared with conventional testing|
|ISSUE-3 (2012) (33)||Randomized controlled trial||511||Risk of syncope recurrence in patients with ICM-detected syncope randomized to pacing arm was reduced by 57% (CI: 4–81)|
|SPRITELY (2018) (34)||Randomized pragmatic trial||115||Empirical pacemaker arm experienced lower rates of primary composite outcomes|
CI = confidence interval; ICM = insertable cardiac monitor; ISSUE -3 = Third International Study on Syncope of Uncertain Etiology; PICTURE = Place of Reveal in the Care Pathway and Treatment of Patients with Unexplained Recurrent Syncope; RAST = Randomized Assessment of Syncope Trial; RR = relative risk; SPRITELY = Syncope: Pacing or Recording in the Later Years.