ArticleScientific reports2021
Atrial fibrillation detection in primary care during blood pressure measurements and using a smartphone cardiac monitor.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying metabolic syndrome in migrant Asian Indian adults with anthropometric and visceral fat action points.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improved atrial fibrillation (AF) screening methods are required. We detected AF with pulse rate variability (PRV) parameters using a blood pressure device (BP+; Uscom, Sydney, Australia) and with a Kardia Mobile Cardiac Monitor (KMCM; AliveCor, Mountain View, CA). In 421 primary care patients (mean (range) age: 72 (31-99) years), we diagnosed AF (n = 133) from 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings, and performed PRV and KMCM measurements. PRV parameters detected AF with area under curve (AUC) values of up to 0.92. Using the mean of two sequential readings increased AUC to up to 0.94 and improved positive predictive value at a given sensitivity (by up to 18%). The KMCM detected AF with 83% sensitivity and 68% specificity. 89 KMCM recordings were "unclassified" or blank, and PRV detected AF in these with AUC values of up to 0.88. When non-AF arrhythmias (n = 56) were excluded, the KMCM device had increased specificity (73%) and PRV had higher discrimination performance (maximum AUC = 0.96). In decision curve analysis, all PRV parameters consistently achieved a positive net benefit across the range of clinical thresholds. In primary care, AF can be detected by PRV accurately and by KMCM, especially in the absence of non-AF arrhythmias or when combinations of measurements are used.
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.