ArticleJournal of the Saudi Heart Association2020
Development and Validation of a Electrocardiographic Diagnostic Score of Heart Failure Among Patients with Hypertension Attending a Tertiary Hospital in Ibadan, Nigeria: The RISK-HHF Case-Control Study.
Article in Journal of the Saudi Heart Association, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHypertension is the leading cause of HF in sub-Saharan Africa. Electrocardiography (ECG) is a cheap and easily available stratification tool for the diagnosis and prognostication of individuals with hypertension. The aim of this study was to develop an ECG-based HF diagnostic score among patients with hypertension attending a specialist cardiology clinic.
methodsOne hundred and one (101) case-control age- and sex-matched pairs were recruited. The study population were adults with a clinical diagnosis of hypertensive HF failure (cases) and systemic hypertension without HF (controls). Participants underwent clinical assessment and ECG. Associations between ECG variables and HF risk were tested with chi square test. Logistic regression modelling (age- and sex adjusted) was trained on a random subset of participants and tested on the remaining participants to determine the ECG abnormalities that are diagnostic of HF and develop a HF diagnostic score. The HF diagnostic score was then validated in an independent dataset of the ECG-Hypertension Audit. Goodness of fit and c-statistics of the HF summed diagnostic score in the training, testing and validation datasets are presented. A two-sided p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe independent ECG diagnostic markers of HF among hypertensive patients in this study in decreasing order of effect size were sinus tachycardia (aOR: 7.72, 95% CI: 2.31-25.85). arrhythmia (aOR: 7.14, 95% CI: 2.57-19.86), left ventricular hypertrophy (aOR: 4.47; 1.85-10.77) and conduction abnormality (aOR: 3.41, 95% CI: 1.21-9.65). The HF summed diagnostic score showed excellent calibration and discrimination in the training (Hosmer Lemeshow p = 0.90; c-statistic 0.82; 95% CI 0.76-0.89) and test samples (Hosmer Lemeshow p=0.31; c-statistic 0.73 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87) of the derivation cohort and an independent validation audit cohort (Hosmer Lemeshow p = 0.17; c-statistic 0.79 95% CI 0.74 to 0.84) respectively. The model showed high diagnostic accuracy in individuals with different intermediate pre-test probabilities of HF.
conclusionsA ECG based HF score consisting of sinus tachycardia, arrhythmia, conduction abnormality and left ventricular hypertrophy is diagnostic of HF especially in those with intermediate pre-test probability of HF. This has clinical importance in the stratification of individuals with systemic hypertension.
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.