智能手机利用光电体积描记术检测心房颤动:一项系统综述和荟萃分析

Simrat Gill, Karina V Bunting, Claudio Sartini, Victor Roth Cardoso, Narges Ghoreishi, Hae-Won Uh, John A Williams, Kiliana Suzart-Woischnik, Amitava Banerjee, Folkert W Asselbergs, Mjc Eijkemans, Georgios V Gkoutos, Dipak Kotecha
{"title":"智能手机利用光电体积描记术检测心房颤动:一项系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Simrat Gill, Karina V Bunting, Claudio Sartini, Victor Roth Cardoso, Narges Ghoreishi, Hae-Won Uh, John A Williams, Kiliana Suzart-Woischnik, Amitava Banerjee, Folkert W Asselbergs, Mjc Eijkemans, Georgios V Gkoutos, Dipak Kotecha","doi":"10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Timely diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) is essential to reduce complications from this increasingly common condition. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone camera photoplethysmography (PPG) compared with conventional electrocardiogram (ECG) for AF detection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane (1980-December 2020), including any study or abstract, where smartphone PPG was compared with a reference ECG (1, 3 or 12-lead). Random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool sensitivity/specificity and identify publication bias, with study quality assessed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) risk of bias tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>28 studies were included (10 full-text publications and 18 abstracts), providing 31 comparisons of smartphone PPG versus ECG for AF detection. 11 404 participants were included (2950 in AF), with most studies being small and based in secondary care. Sensitivity and specificity for AF detection were high, ranging from 81% to 100%, and from 85% to 100%, respectively. 20 comparisons from 17 studies were meta-analysed, including 6891 participants (2299 with AF); the pooled sensitivity was 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%) and specificity 97% (96%-98%), with substantial heterogeneity (p<0.01). Studies were of poor quality overall and none met all the QUADAS-2 criteria, with particular issues regarding selection bias and the potential for publication bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PPG provides a non-invasive, patient-led screening tool for AF. However, current evidence is limited to small, biased, low-quality studies with unrealistically high sensitivity and specificity. Further studies are needed, preferably independent from manufacturers, in order to advise clinicians on the true value of PPG technology for AF detection.</p>","PeriodicalId":9311,"journal":{"name":"British Heart Journal","volume":"108 1","pages":"1600-1607"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9554073/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Smartphone detection of atrial fibrillation using photoplethysmography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Simrat Gill, Karina V Bunting, Claudio Sartini, Victor Roth Cardoso, Narges Ghoreishi, Hae-Won Uh, John A Williams, Kiliana Suzart-Woischnik, Amitava Banerjee, Folkert W Asselbergs, Mjc Eijkemans, Georgios V Gkoutos, Dipak Kotecha\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320417\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Timely diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) is essential to reduce complications from this increasingly common condition. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone camera photoplethysmography (PPG) compared with conventional electrocardiogram (ECG) for AF detection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane (1980-December 2020), including any study or abstract, where smartphone PPG was compared with a reference ECG (1, 3 or 12-lead). Random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool sensitivity/specificity and identify publication bias, with study quality assessed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) risk of bias tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>28 studies were included (10 full-text publications and 18 abstracts), providing 31 comparisons of smartphone PPG versus ECG for AF detection. 11 404 participants were included (2950 in AF), with most studies being small and based in secondary care. Sensitivity and specificity for AF detection were high, ranging from 81% to 100%, and from 85% to 100%, respectively. 20 comparisons from 17 studies were meta-analysed, including 6891 participants (2299 with AF); the pooled sensitivity was 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%) and specificity 97% (96%-98%), with substantial heterogeneity (p<0.01). Studies were of poor quality overall and none met all the QUADAS-2 criteria, with particular issues regarding selection bias and the potential for publication bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PPG provides a non-invasive, patient-led screening tool for AF. However, current evidence is limited to small, biased, low-quality studies with unrealistically high sensitivity and specificity. Further studies are needed, preferably independent from manufacturers, in order to advise clinicians on the true value of PPG technology for AF detection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9311,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Heart Journal\",\"volume\":\"108 1\",\"pages\":\"1600-1607\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9554073/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Heart Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320417\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2021-320417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的房颤(AF)的及时诊断对于减少这种日益常见的疾病的并发症至关重要。我们试图评估智能手机相机光电体积脉搏图(PPG)与传统心电图(ECG)在AF检测中的诊断准确性。这是一项对MEDLINE、EMBASE和Cochrane(1980 - 2020年12月)的系统综述,包括所有将智能手机PPG与参考心电图(1导联、3导联或12导联)进行比较的研究或摘要。进行随机效应荟萃分析以汇集敏感性/特异性并确定发表偏倚,并使用QUADAS-2(诊断准确性研究质量评估-2)偏倚风险工具评估研究质量。结果纳入28项研究(10篇全文出版物和18篇摘要),提供了31个智能手机PPG与ECG检测心房颤动的比较。11404名受试者(房颤2950名)纳入研究,大多数研究规模较小,且基于二级护理。AF检测的灵敏度和特异性均较高,分别为81% ~ 100%和85% ~ 100%。来自17项研究的20项比较进行了荟萃分析,包括6891名参与者(2299名AF患者);合并敏感性为94% (95% CI为92% ~ 95%),特异性为97%(96% ~ 98%),异质性显著(p<0.01)。总体而言,研究质量较差,没有一项符合所有QUADAS-2标准,特别是关于选择偏倚和潜在的发表偏倚的问题。结论:PPG为房颤提供了一种非侵入性、患者主导的筛查工具。然而,目前的证据仅限于小范围、偏倚、低质量的研究,具有不切实际的高灵敏度和特异性。需要进一步的研究,最好是独立于制造商,以便就PPG技术在房颤检测中的真正价值向临床医生提供建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Smartphone detection of atrial fibrillation using photoplethysmography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: Timely diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) is essential to reduce complications from this increasingly common condition. We sought to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone camera photoplethysmography (PPG) compared with conventional electrocardiogram (ECG) for AF detection.

Methods: This is a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane (1980-December 2020), including any study or abstract, where smartphone PPG was compared with a reference ECG (1, 3 or 12-lead). Random effects meta-analysis was performed to pool sensitivity/specificity and identify publication bias, with study quality assessed using the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2) risk of bias tool.

Results: 28 studies were included (10 full-text publications and 18 abstracts), providing 31 comparisons of smartphone PPG versus ECG for AF detection. 11 404 participants were included (2950 in AF), with most studies being small and based in secondary care. Sensitivity and specificity for AF detection were high, ranging from 81% to 100%, and from 85% to 100%, respectively. 20 comparisons from 17 studies were meta-analysed, including 6891 participants (2299 with AF); the pooled sensitivity was 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%) and specificity 97% (96%-98%), with substantial heterogeneity (p<0.01). Studies were of poor quality overall and none met all the QUADAS-2 criteria, with particular issues regarding selection bias and the potential for publication bias.

Conclusion: PPG provides a non-invasive, patient-led screening tool for AF. However, current evidence is limited to small, biased, low-quality studies with unrealistically high sensitivity and specificity. Further studies are needed, preferably independent from manufacturers, in order to advise clinicians on the true value of PPG technology for AF detection.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信