ArticleCardiovascular digital health journal2024
Can eHealth programs for cardiac arrhythmias be scaled-up by using the KardiaMobile algorithm?
Article in Cardiovascular digital health journal, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Remote monitoring devices for atrial fibrillation are known to positively contribute to the diagnostic process and therapy compliance. However, automatic algorithms within devices show varying sensitivity and specificity, so manual double-checking of electrocardiographic (ECG) recordings remains necessary. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity of the KardiaMobile algorithm within the Dutch telemonitoring program (HartWacht). Methods: This retrospective study determined the diagnostic accuracy of the algorithm using assessments by a telemonitoring team as reference. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and F1 scores were determined. Results: A total of 2298 patients (59.5% female; median age 57 ± 15 years) recorded 86,816 ECGs between April 2019 and January 2021. The algorithm showed sensitivity of 0.956, specificity 0.985, PPV 0.996, NPV 0.847, and F1 score 0.976 for the detection of sinus rhythm. A total of 29 false-positive outcomes remained uncorrected within the same patients. The algorithm showed sensitivity of 0.989, specificity 0.953, PPV 0.835, NPV 0.997, and F1 score 0.906 for detection of atrial fibrillation. A total of 2 false-negative outcomes remained uncorrected. Conclusion: Our research showed high validity of the algorithm for the detection of both sinus rhythm and, to a lesser extent, atrial fibrillation. This finding suggests that the algorithm could function as a standalone instrument particularly for detection of sinus rhythm.
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.