SynthesisJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2020
A meta-analytic evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the electrocardiographic Peguero-Lo Presti criterion for left ventricular hypertrophy.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Peguero-Lo Presti criteria for the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- A meta-analytic evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of the electrocardiographic Peguero-Lo Presti criterion for left ventricular hypertrophy.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2020Pooled it
- Article
- Do We Need New Electrocardiographic Criteria for Left Ventricular Hypertrophy? The Case of the Peguero-Lo Presti Criterion. A Narrative Review.American journal of hypertension · 2024Review
- Diagnostic Ability of Peguero-Lo Presti Electrocardiographic Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Criterion in Severe Aortic Stenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Accuracy of the novel Peguero Lo-Presti criterion for electrocardiographic detection of left ventricular hypertrophy in a black African population.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although electrocardiography (ECG) is a cost-effective and convenient tool for routine screening of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), its performance has been shown to be poor. The Peguero-Lo Presti, a novel voltage criterion, was found to be potentially better than the most commonly used criteria. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of its diagnostic accuracy compared to Cornell and Sokolow-Lyon voltage criteria. Bibliographic databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed for comparison. Ten studies reporting data from 5984 individuals were included in the meta-analysis. Peguero-Lo Presti had the highest pooled sensitivity (43.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 30.2-56.9) followed by Cornell (26.1%; 95% CI: 16.9-37.9) and Sokolow Lyon (22.0%; 95% CI: 14.1-32.7). However, Peguero-Lo Presti had the lesser pooled specificity (90.5%; 95% CI: 86.3-93.5) and Cornell the highest (94.9%; 95% CI: 90.3-97.3). The pooled DOR was 6.63 (95% CI: 3.95-11.13), 5.50 (95% CI: 3.64-8.30), and 2.94 (95% CI: 2.20-3.92) for Peguero-Lo Presti, Cornell, and Sokolow-Lyon, respectively. Peguero-Lo Presti had the best accuracy according to summary ROC curves, with an area under the curve of 0.827 compared to 0.715 for Cornell, and 0.623 for Sokolow-Lyon. In conclusion, according to this meta-analysis, Peguero-Lo Presti has a better diagnostic performance than Cornell and Sokolow-Lyon and might be more useful in routine clinical practice as a screening tool for LVH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.