Why the study?
To verify if automated oscillometric blood pressure monitors have sufficiently high predictive validity to screen patients with AF.
Do automated oscillometric blood pressure monitors have high predictive validity for screening atrial fibrillation in elderly patients?
Do automated oscillometric blood pressure monitors have high predictive validity for screening atrial fibrillation in elderly patients?
Automated oscillometric blood pressure monitors demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity for screening atrial fibrillation in the elderly, offering a convenient tool for stroke prevention.
Supports opportunistic AF screening with AOBPMs during BP measurement; confirms high diagnostic accuracy for guideline integration.
Background: This study was conducted to verify if automated oscillometric blood pressure monitors (AOBPMs) have sufficiently high predictive validity to screen patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).Methods: Electronic searches were performed to identify all studies published between 1946 and 14 July 2018, from indexed in Ovid-Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL by using the following keywords: ‘atrial fibrillation,’ ‘atrial flutter,’ ‘blood pressure monitor,’ and ‘sphygmomanometer.’Results: Thirteen diagnostic accuracy studies, including a total of 9,380 elderly, were included in our meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the pooled sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89 to 0.93), and the heterogeneity between studies was as high as 88.4% (X2 = 120.55, p < 0.001). The pooled specificity was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.97), and the heterogeneity between studies was 95.3% (X2 = 299.26, p < .001). The area under the curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve was 0.98 (SE = 0.005), and the Q-value was 0.94 (SE = 0.010).Conclusion: The AOBPM is an appropriate screening tool that may be applied to elderly to verify the presence of AF conveniently. The AOBPM has high applicability in practice, since it may prevent potentially fatal complications such as stroke.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: