SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Sensitivity and specificity of automated blood pressure devices to detect atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent and preventable cause of stroke and mortality. Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of office and out-of-office automated blood pressure (BP) devices to detect AF. Methods: Diagnostic studies, extracted from databases such as Ovid Medline and Embase, on AF detection by BP device(s), electrocardiography, and reported sensitivity and specificity, were included. Screening of abstracts and full texts, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two investigators using Covidence software. The sensitivity and specificity of the BP devices were pooled using a random-effects model. Results: Sixteen studies including 10,158 participants were included. Only a few studies were conducted in primary care ( Conclusions: Office BP devices can be used clinically to screen for AF in high-risk populations. Clinical trials are needed to determine the effect of AF screening using office BP devices in reducing stroke risk and mortality. Further studies are also required to guide out-of-office use of BP devices for detecting paroxysmal AF or AF. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022319541, PROSPERO CRD42022319541.
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.