Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37892714›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023

Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence-Based Technologies for the Diagnosis of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Nikolaos Manetas-Stavrakakis, Ioanna Myrto Sotiropoulou, Themistoklis Paraskevas, Stefania Maneta Stavrakaki, Dimitrios Bampatsias, Andrew Xanthopoulos, Nikolaos Papageorgiou, Alexandros Briasoulis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Nikolaos Manetas-StavrakakisDepartment of Clinical Therapeutics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 157 28 Athens, Greece.
Ioanna Myrto SotiropoulouDepartment of Clinical Therapeutics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 157 28 Athens, Greece.
Themistoklis ParaskevasDepartment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Patras, 265 04 Patras, Greece.
Stefania Maneta StavrakakiFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4621-4704
Dimitrios BampatsiasDivision of Cardiology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.
Andrew XanthopoulosDepartment of Cardiology, University of Thessaly, 382 21 Larissa, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-9439-3946
Nikolaos PapageorgiouBarts Health NHS Trust, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
Alexandros BriasoulisDepartment of Clinical Therapeutics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 157 28 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-5740-9670

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia with a high burden of morbidity including impaired quality of life and increased risk of thromboembolism. Early detection and management of AF could prevent thromboembolic events. Artificial intelligence (AI)--based methods in healthcare are developing quickly and can be proved as valuable for the detection of atrial fibrillation. In this metanalysis, we aim to review the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based methods for the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. A predetermined search strategy was applied on four databases, the PubMed on 31 August 2022, the Google Scholar and Cochrane Library on 3 September 2022, and the Embase on 15 October 2022. The identified studies were screened by two independent investigators. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based devices for the detection of AF in adults against a gold standard were selected. Qualitative and quantitative synthesis to calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity was performed, and the QUADAS-2 tool was used for the risk of bias and applicability assessment. We screened 14,770 studies, from which 31 were eligible and included. All were diagnostic accuracy studies with case-control or cohort design. The main technologies used were: (a) photoplethysmography (PPG) with pooled sensitivity 95.1% and specificity 96.2%, and (b) single-lead ECG with pooled sensitivity 92.3% and specificity 96.2%. In the PPG group, 0% to 43.2% of the tracings could not be classified using the AI algorithm as AF or not, and in the single-lead ECG group, this figure fluctuated between 0% and 38%. Our analysis showed that AI-based methods for the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation have high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of AF. Further studies should examine whether utilization of these methods could improve clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceatrial fibrillationscreening

Identifiers

PMID37892714
PMCPMC10607777

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.