Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33513186›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Peguero-Lo Presti criteria for the diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zongying Yu, Jie Song, Li Cheng, Shasha Li, Qun Lu, Yafeng Zhang, Xiaoci Lin, Dadong Liu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
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

8 authors.

Zongying YuDepartment of Electrocardiography, The No. 4 Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China.
Jie SongDepartment of Electrocardiography, The No. 4 Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China.
Li ChengDepartment of Electrocardiography, The No. 4 Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China.
Shasha LiDepartment of Cardiology, The No. 4 Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China.
Qun LuDepartment of Electrocardiography, The No. 4 Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China.
Yafeng ZhangDepartment of Infection Management, Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China.
Xiaoci LinDepartment of Internal Medicine, The First People's Hospital of Daishan, Zhejiang, China.
Dadong LiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6175-3415

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Peguero-Lo Presti criteria are novel electrocardiographic (ECG) diagnostic criteria for the detection of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and represent the sum of the amplitude of the deepest S wave in any lead with the S wave in lead V4 (SD+SV4). The diagnostic efficacy of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria in LVH is still debatable. We aimed to test the sensitivity and specificity of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria and compared them with those of the Cornell voltage index to assess their overall performance in LVH diagnosis.

methodsElectronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Knowledge, Embase, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from their inception until May 18, 2020. Trials written in English that investigated the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria for detecting LVH were included. Data were independently extracted and analyzed by two investigators.

resultsA total of 51 records were screened, and 6 trials comprising 13,564 patients were finally included. A bivariate analysis showed that the sensitivity of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.58) was higher than that of the Cornell voltage index (0.29, 95% CI 0.23-0.36) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.24, 95% CI 0.21-0.27); the diagnostic accuracy of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.73) was also higher than that of the Cornell voltage index (0.67, 95% CI 0.62-0.71) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.28, 95% CI 0.25-0.32); and the specificity of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.90) was similar to that of the Cornell voltage index (0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.95) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.94, 95%CI 0.88-0.97). Two trials (including 12,748 patients) were discharged because they included partly healthy subjects and accounted for substantial heterogeneity. Pooled analysis of the remaining 4 trials (including 816 patients) showed that the sensitivity of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.56, 95% CI 0.51-0.61) was also higher than that of the Cornell voltage index (0.36, 95% CI 0.31-0.42) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.24, 95% CI 0.18-0.31); the diagnostic accuracy of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.84, 95% CI 0.80-0.87) was also higher than that of the Cornell voltage index (0.54, 95% CI 0.50-0.58) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.38, 95% CI 0.34-0.42); and the specificity of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria (0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.92) was similar to that of the Cornell voltage index (0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.96) and Sokolow-Lyon criteria (0.97, 95% CI 0.90-0.99). Both the likelihood ratio and posttest probability of the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria and Cornell voltage index were moderate.

conclusionBased on this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Peguero-Lo Presti criteria-based ECG diagnostic method for LVH has high sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy and should be applied in clinical practice settings.

Indexed as

ElectrocardiographyHypertensionAgedFemaleHumansHypertrophy, Left VentricularMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID33513186
PMCPMC7846009

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.