Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31869370›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Lead-I ECG for detecting atrial fibrillation in patients attending primary care with an irregular pulse using single-time point testing: A systematic review and economic evaluation.

Rui Duarte, Angela Stainthorpe, James Mahon, Janette Greenhalgh, Marty Richardson, Sarah Nevitt, Eleanor Kotas, Angela Boland, Howard Thom, Tom Marshall and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Comprehensive atrial fibrillation burden and symptom reduction post-ablation: insights from DECAAF II.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Rui DuarteLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6485-7415
Angela StainthorpeLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2531-9371
James MahonColdingham Analytical Services, Berwickshire, United Kingdom.
Janette GreenhalghLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4812-1904
Marty RichardsonLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7097-8704
Sarah NevittLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9988-2709
Eleanor KotasLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Angela BolandLiverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Howard ThomBristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Tom MarshallInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9277-5214
Mark HallLiverpool Heart and Chest Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5082-8944
Yemisi TakwoingiInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5828-9746
University of Liverpool · GBR&G Associates · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health 14/141/01Department of Health 14/25/10Department of Health 16/30/05Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common type of cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with increased risk of stroke and congestive heart failure. Lead-I electrocardiogram (ECG) devices are handheld instruments that can detect AF at a single-time point. PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost effectiveness of single-time point lead-I ECG devices compared with manual pulse palpation (MPP) followed by a 12-lead ECG for the detection of AF in symptomatic primary care patients with an irregular pulse.

methodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database) were searched to March 2018. Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed study quality. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using bivariate models. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an economic model consisting of a decision tree and two cohort Markov models.

resultsDiagnostic accuracy The diagnostic accuracy (13 publications reporting on nine studies) and clinical impact (24 publications reporting on 19 studies) results are derived from an asymptomatic population (used as a proxy for people with signs or symptoms of AF). The summary sensitivity of lead-I ECG devices was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.2% to 97.4%) and summary specificity was 96.5% (95% CI: 90.4% to 98.8%). Cost effectiveness The de novo economic model yielded incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The results of the pairwise analysis show that all lead-I ECG devices generate ICERs per QALY gained below the £20,000-£30,000 threshold. Kardia Mobile is the most cost effective option in a full incremental analysis. Lead-I ECG tests may identify more AF cases than the standard diagnostic pathway. This comes at a higher cost but with greater patient benefit in terms of mortality and quality of life. LIMITATIONS: No published data evaluating the diagnostic accuracy, clinical impact or cost effectiveness of lead-I ECG devices for the target population are available.

conclusionsThe use of single-time point lead-I ECG devices in primary care for the detection of AF in people with signs or symptoms of AF and an irregular pulse appears to be a cost effective use of NHS resources compared with MPP followed by a 12-lead ECG, given the assumptions used in the base case model. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review is registered on PROSPERO as CRD42018090375.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAtrial FibrillationCost-Benefit AnalysisElectrocardiographyFemaleHumansMaleMarkov ChainsMiddle AgedPrimary Health CarePulse

Identifiers

PMID31869370
PMCPMC6927656
OpenAlexW2996595048

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.