ArticlePloS one2024
Diagnostic accuracy of digital technologies compared with 12-lead ECG in the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation in adults: A protocol for a systematic review.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Global implementation and evaluation of atrial fibrillation screening in the past two decades - a narrative review.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia in the world. AF increases the risk of stroke 5-fold, though the risk can be reduced with appropriate treatment. Therefore, early diagnosis is imperative but remains a global challenge. In low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), a lack of diagnostic equipment and under-resourced healthcare systems generate further barriers. The rapid development of digital technologies that are capable of diagnosing AF remotely and cost-effectively could prove beneficial for LMICs. However, evidence is lacking on what digital technologies exist and how they compare in regards to diagnostic accuracy. We aim to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of all digital technologies capable of AF diagnosis.
methodsMEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science will be searched for eligible studies. Free text terms will be combined with corresponding index terms where available and searches will not be limited by language nor time of publication. Cohort or cross-sectional studies comprising adult (≥18 years) participants will be included. Only studies that use a 12-lead ECG as the reference test (comparator) and report outcomes of sensitivity, specificity, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) or the positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) will be included (or if they provide sufficient data to calculate these outcomes). Two reviewers will independently assess articles for inclusion, extract data using a piloted tool and assess risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. The feasibility of a meta-analysis will be determined by assessing heterogeneity across the studies, grouped by index device, diagnostic threshold and setting. If a meta-analysis is feasible for any index device, pooled sensitivity and specificity will be calculated using a random effect model and presented in forest plots. DISCUSSION: The findings of our review will provide a comprehensive synthesis of the diagnostic accuracy of available digital technologies capable for diagnosing AF. Thus, this review will aid in the identification of which devices could be further trialed and implemented, particularly in a LMIC setting, to improve the early diagnosis of AF.
trial registrationSystematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021290542. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021290542.
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.