Accuracy of methods for detecting an irregular pulse and suspected atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Open Access
- 13 October 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
- Vol. 23 (12), 1330-1338
- https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487315611347
Abstract
Pulse palpation has been recommended as the first step of screening to detect atrial fibrillation. We aimed to determine and compare the accuracy of different methods for detecting pulse irregularities caused by atrial fibrillation. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS until 16 March 2015. Two reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted data and appraised quality using the QUADAS-2 instrument. Meta-analysis, using the bivariate hierarchical random effects method, determined average operating points for sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR); we constructed summary receiver operating characteristic plots. Twenty-one studies investigated 39 interventions (n = 15,129 pulse assessments) for detecting atrial fibrillation. Compared to 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) diagnosed atrial fibrillation, blood pressure monitors (BPMs; seven interventions) and non-12-lead ECGs (20 interventions) had the greatest accuracy for detecting pulse irregularities attributable to atrial fibrillation (BPM: sensitivity 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92–1.00), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.95), PLR 12.1 (95% CI 8.2–17.8) and NLR 0.02 (95% CI 0.00–0.09); non-12-lead ECG: sensitivity 0.91 (95% CI 0.86–0.94), specificity 0.95 (95% CI 0.92–0.97), PLR 20.1 (95% CI 12–33.7), NLR 0.09 (95% CI 0.06–0.14)). There were similar findings for smartphone applications (six interventions) although these studies were small in size. The sensitivity and specificity of pulse palpation (six interventions) were 0.92 (95% CI 0.85–0.96) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.76–0.88), respectively (PLR 5.2 (95% CI 3.8–7.2), NLR 0.1 (95% CI 0.05–0.18)). BPMs and non-12-lead ECG were most accurate for detecting pulse irregularities caused by atrial fibrillation; other technologies may therefore be pragmatic alternatives to pulse palpation for the first step of atrial fibrillation screening.This publication has 37 references indexed in Scilit:
- Effectiveness of systematic screening for the detection of atrial fibrillationPublished by Wiley ,2013
- QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy StudiesAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2011
- Screening for atrial fibrillation: sensitivity and specificity of a new methodologyBritish Journal of General Practice, 2011
- Prospective, multicentre validation of a simple, patient-operated electrocardiographic system for the detection of arrhythmias and electrocardiographic changesEP Europace, 2009
- Diagnostic accuracy of a home blood pressure monitor to detect atrial fibrillationJournal of Human Hypertension, 2009
- Short-term ECG for out of hospital detection of silent atrial fibrillation episodesScandinavian Cardiovascular Journal, 2009
- Independent predictors of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillationNeurology, 2007
- Screening versus routine practice in detection of atrial fibrillation in patients aged 65 or over: cluster randomised controlled trialBMJ, 2007
- The Use of a Modified Sphygmomanometer to Detect Atrial Fibrillation in OutpatientsPacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 2004
- Population prevalence, incidence, and predictors of atrial fibrillation in the Renfrew/Paisley studyHeart, 2001