Diagnostic accuracy of digital technologies compared with 12-lead ECG in the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation in adults: A protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia in the world. AF increases the risk of stroke 5-fold, though the risk can be reduced with appropriate treatment. Therefore, early diagnosis is imperative but remains a global challenge. In low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), a lack of diagnostic equipment and under-resourced healthcare systems generate further barriers. The rapid development of digital technologies that are capable of diagnosing AF remotely and cost-effectively could prove beneficial for LMICs. However, evidence is lacking on what digital technologies exist and how they compare in regards to diagnostic accuracy. We aim to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of all digital technologies capable of AF diagnosis. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science will be searched for eligible studies. Free text terms will be combined with corresponding index terms where available and searches will not be limited by language nor time of publication. Cohort or cross-sectional studies comprising adult (≥18 years) participants will be included. Only studies that use a 12-lead ECG as the reference test (comparator) and report outcomes of sensitivity, specificity, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) or the positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) will be included (or if they provide sufficient data to calculate these outcomes). Two reviewers will independently assess articles for inclusion, extract data using a piloted tool and assess risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. The feasibility of a meta-analysis will be determined by assessing heterogeneity across the studies, grouped by index device, diagnostic threshold and setting. If a meta-analysis is feasible for any index device, pooled sensitivity and specificity will be calculated using a random effect model and presented in forest plots. DISCUSSION: The findings of our review will provide a comprehensive synthesis of the diagnostic accuracy of available digital technologies capable for diagnosing AF. Thus, this review will aid in the identification of which devices could be further trialed and implemented, particularly in a LMIC setting, to improve the early diagnosis of AF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number is CRD42021290542. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021290542.