SynthesisHeart (British Cardiac Society)2026
Diagnostic accuracy of electrocardiogram algorithms for differentiating left from right outflow tract ventricular arrhythmia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2026. 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
- AssociatedPublication
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate pre-ablation differentiation between left (LVOT) and right (RVOT) ventricular outflow tract arrhythmias (OTVAs) using ECG algorithms is essential for decision on vascular access and treatment strategy. However, the most reliable ECG algorithm remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the diagnostic accuracy of available algorithms.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases through 7 May 2025 for studies evaluating ECG algorithms against ablation-confirmed OTVA origin. A Bayesian diagnostic test accuracy NMA was performed to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) and a superiority index (S) for each algorithm. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) tool.
resultsFrom 620 records, 22 studies (3483 patients; 2706 RVOT, 777 LVOT) evaluating 21 ECG algorithms were included. The 'Weighted hybrid score' algorithm showed the highest diagnostic accuracy (S=21.2 (0.3, 39.0); DOR=275.8 (7.1, 1642.5)), with pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (0.53, 0.98) and specificity of 0.92 (0.68, 0.99). Conversely, the 'Earliest onset or peak/nadir in lead V2' algorithm had the lowest accuracy.
conclusionsAmong existing ECG algorithms, the 'Weighted hybrid score' demonstrates superior diagnostic performance for differentiating LVOT from RVOT arrhythmias and is recommended for clinical application. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024567531.
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.