Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of Ambulatory Devices in Detecting Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia worldwide. Early diagnosis of AF is crucial for preventing AF-related morbidity, mortality, and economic burden, yet the detection of the disease remains challenging. The 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of AF. Because of technological advances, ambulatory devices may serve as convenient screening tools for AF.

Objective

The objective of this review was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of 2 relatively new technologies used in ambulatory devices, non-12-lead ECG and photoplethysmography (PPG), in detecting AF. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of non-12-lead ECG and PPG compared to the reference standard, 12-lead ECG. We also conducted a subgroup analysis to assess the impact of study design and participant recruitment on diagnostic accuracy.

Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched for articles published from January 1, 2015 to January 23, 2021. A bivariate model was used to pool estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and area under the summary receiver operating curve (SROC) as the main diagnostic measures. Study quality was evaluated using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS-2) tool.

Results

Our search resulted in 16 studies using either non-12-lead ECG or PPG for detecting AF, comprising 3217 participants and 7623 assessments. The pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and diagnostic odds ratio for the detection of AF were 89.7% (95% CI 83.2%-93.9%), 95.7% (95% CI 92.0%-97.7%), 20.64 (95% CI 10.10-42.15), 0.11 (95% CI 0.06-0.19), and 224.75 (95% CI 70.10-720.56), respectively, for the automatic interpretation of non-12-lead ECG measurements and 94.7% (95% CI 93.3%-95.8%), 97.6% (95% CI 94.5%-99.0%), 35.51 (95% CI 18.19-69.31), 0.05 (95% CI 0.04-0.07), and 730.79 (95% CI 309.33-1726.49), respectively, for the automatic interpretation of PPG measurements.

Conclusions

Both non-12-lead ECG and PPG offered high diagnostic accuracies for AF. Detection employing automatic analysis techniques may serve as a useful preliminary screening tool before administering a gold standard test, which generally requires competent physician analyses. Subgroup analysis indicated variations of sensitivity and specificity between studies that recruited low-risk and high-risk populations, warranting future validity tests in the general population.

Trial registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020179937; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=179937.

SUBMITTER: Yang TY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8065566 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects more than 6 million people in the United States; however, much AF remains undiagnosed. Given that more than 265 million people in the United States own smartphones (>80% of the population), smartphone applications have been proposed for detecting AF, but the accuracy of these applications remains unclear. Objective:To determine the accuracy of smartphone camera applications that diagnose AF. Data Sources and Study Selection:MEDLINE and Embase were searched until January 2019 for studies that assessed the accuracy of any smartphone applications that use the smartphone's camera to measure the amplitude and frequency of the user's fingertip pulse to diagnose AF. Data Extraction and Synthesis:Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were constructed to synthesize data. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures:Sensitivity and specificity were measured with bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. To simulate the use of these applications as a screening tool, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for different population groups (ie, age ?65 years and age ?65 years with hypertension) were modeled. Lastly, the association of methodological limitations with outcomes were analyzed with sensitivity analyses and metaregressions. Results:A total of 10 primary diagnostic accuracy studies, with 3852 participants and 4 applications, were included. The oldest studies were published in 2016 (2 studies [20.0%]), while most studies (4 [40.0%]) were published in 2018. The applications analyzed the pulsewave signal for a mean (range) of 2 (1-5) minutes. The meta-analyzed sensitivity and specificity for all applications combined were 94.2% (95% CI, 92.2%-95.7%) and 95.8% (95% CI, 92.4%-97.7%), respectively. The PPV for smartphone camera applications detecting AF in an asymptomatic population aged 65 years and older was between 19.3% (95% CI, 19.2%-19.4%) and 37.5% (95% CI, 37.4%-37.6%), and the NPV was between 99.8% (95% CI, 99.83%-99.84%) and 99.9% (95% CI, 99.94%-99.95%). The PPV and NPV increased for individuals aged 65 years and older with hypertension (PPV, 20.5% [95% CI, 20.4%-20.6%] to 39.2% [95% CI, 39.1%-39.3%]; NPV, 99.8% [95% CI, 99.8%-99.8%] to 99.9% [95% CI, 99.9%-99.9%]). There were methodological limitations in a number of studies that did not appear to be associated with diagnostic performance, but this could not be definitively excluded given the sparsity of the data. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, all smartphone camera applications had relatively high sensitivity and specificity. The modeled NPV was high for all analyses, but the PPV was modest, suggesting that using these applications in an asymptomatic population may generate a higher number of false-positive than true-positive results. Future research should address the accuracy of these applications when screening other high-risk population groups, their ability to help monitor chronic AF, and, ultimately, their associations with patient-important outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial Intelligence (AI) holds considerable promise for diagnostics in the field of gastroenterology. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AI models compared with the gold standard of experts and histopathology for the diagnosis of various gastrointestinal (GI) luminal pathologies including polyps, neoplasms, and inflammatory bowel disease.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, Wiley Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases to identify studies assessing the diagnostic performance of AI models for GI luminal pathologies. We extracted binary diagnostic accuracy data and constructed contingency tables to derive the outcomes of interest: sensitivity and specificity. We performed a meta-analysis and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves (HSROC). The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the type of GI luminal disease, AI model, reference standard, and type of data used for analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021288360).FindingsWe included 73 studies, of which 31 were externally validated and provided sufficient information for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity of AI for detecting GI luminal pathologies was 91.9% (95% CI: 89.0-94.1) and specificity was 91.7% (95% CI: 87.4-94.7). Deep learning models (sensitivity: 89.8%, specificity: 91.9%) and ensemble methods (sensitivity: 95.4%, specificity: 90.9%) were the most commonly used models in the included studies. Majority of studies (n = 56, 76.7%) had a high risk of selection bias while 74% (n = 54) studies were low risk on reference standard and 67% (n = 49) were low risk for flow and timing bias.InterpretationThe review suggests high sensitivity and specificity of AI models for the detection of GI luminal pathologies. There is a need for large, multi-center trials in both high income countries and low- and middle- income countries to assess the performance of these AI models in real clinical settings and its impact on diagnosis and prognosis.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=288360], identifier [CRD42021288360].

Project description:Background: Several bleeding risk assessment models have been developed in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with oral anticoagulants, but the most appropriate tool for predicting bleeding remains uncertain. Therefore, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Hypertension, Abnormal liver/renal function, Stroke, Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio, Elderly, Drugs/alcohol concomitantly (HAS-BLED) score compared with other risk scores in anticoagulated patients with AF. Methods: We comprehensively searched the PubMed and Embase databases until July 2021 to identify relevant pieces of literature. The predictive abilities of risk scores were fully assessed by the C-statistic, net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) values, calibration data, and decision curve analyses. Results: A total of 39 studies met the inclusion criteria. The C-statistic of the HAS-BLED score for predicting major bleeding was 0.63 (0.61-0.65) in anticoagulated patients regardless of vitamin k antagonists [0.63 (0.61-0.65)] and direct oral anticoagulants [0.63 (0.59-0.67)]. The HAS-BLED had the similar C-statistic to the Hepatic or renal disease, Ethanol abuse, Malignancy, Older, Reduced platelet count or function, Re-bleeding risk, Hypertension (uncontrolled), Anemia, Genetic factors, Excessive fall risk, Stroke (HEMORR2HAGES), the Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA), the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT), the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF), or the Age, Biomarkers, Clinical History (ABC) scores, but significantly higher C-statistic than the Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/transient ischemic attack history (CHADS2) or the Congestive heart failure/left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, Hypertension, Age ≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, Stroke/transient ischemic attack/thromboembolism history, Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex (female) (CHA2DS2-VASc) scores. NRI and IDI values suggested that the HAS-BLED score performed better than the CHADS2 or the CHA2DS2-VASc scores and had similar or superior predictive ability compared with the HEMORR2HAGES, the ATRIA, the ORBIT, or the GARFIELD-AF scores. Calibration and decision curve analyses of the HAS-BLED score compared with other scores required further assessment due to the limited evidence. Conclusion: The HAS-BLED score has moderate predictive abilities for bleeding risks in patients with AF regardless of type of oral anticoagulants. Current evidence support that the HAS-BLED score is at least non-inferior to the HEMORR2HAGES, the ATRIA, the ORBIT, the GARFIELD-AF, the CHADS2, the CHA2DS2-VASc, or the ABC scores.