ReviewGlobal heart2024
The Echocardiographic Diagnosis of Rheumatic Heart Disease: A Review of the Performance of the World Heart Federation Criteria 2012-2023.
Review in Global heart, 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.
- Acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The World Heart Federation (WHF) published the first evidence-based guidelines on the echocardiographic diagnosis of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) in 2012. These guidelines have since been applied internationally in research and clinical practice. Substantial research has assessed the utility of the 2012 WHF criteria, including its applicability in low-resource settings. This article summarises the evidence regarding the performance of the guidelines. Methods: A scoping review assessing the performance of the guidelines was performed. Cochrane, Embase, Medline, PubMed Lilacs, Sielo, and Portal BVS databases were searched for studies on the performance of the guidelines between January 2012-March 2023, and 4047 manuscripts met the search criteria, of which 34 were included. This included papers assessing the specificity, inter-rater reliability, application using hand-carried ultrasound, and modification of the criteria for simplicity. The review followed the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guideline. Results: The WHF 2012 criteria were 100% specific for definite RHD when applied in low-prevalence populations. The criteria demonstrated substantial and moderate inter-rater reliability for detecting definite and borderline RHD, respectively. The inter-rater reliability for morphological features was lower than for valvular regurgitation. When applied to hand-carried ultrasound performed by an expert, modified versions of the criteria demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity range of 79-90% and 87-93% respectively for detecting any RHD, performing best for definite RHD. The sensitivity and the specificity were reduced when performed in task-sharing but remains moderately accurate. Conclusion: The WHF 2012 criteria provide clear guidance for the echocardiographic diagnosis of RHD that is reproducible and applicable to a range of echocardiographic technology. Furthermore, the criteria are highly specific and particularly accurate for detecting definite RHD. There are limitations in applying all aspects of the criteria in specific settings, including task-sharing. This summary of evidence can inform the updated version of the WHF guidelines to ensure improved applicability in all RHD endemic regions.
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.