Mobile health (mHealth) devices can be used for the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Early diagnosis allows better treatment and prevention of secondary diseases like stroke. Although there are many ...different mHealth devices to screen for atrial fibrillation, their accuracy varies due to different technological approaches.
We aimed to systematically review available studies that assessed the accuracy of mHealth devices in screening for atrial fibrillation. The goal of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of available technologies, specific characteristics, and accuracy of all relevant studies.
PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched from January 2014 until January 2019. Our systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. We restricted the search by year of publication, language, noninvasive methods, and focus on diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Articles not including information about the accuracy of devices were excluded.
We found 467 relevant studies. After removing duplicates and excluding ineligible records, 22 studies were included. The accuracy of mHealth devices varied among different technologies, their application settings, and study populations. We described and summarized the eligible studies.
Our systematic review identifies different technologies for screening for atrial fibrillation with mHealth devices. A specific technology's suitability depends on the underlying form of atrial fibrillation to be diagnosed. With the suitable use of mHealth, early diagnosis and treatment of atrial fibrillation are possible. Successful application of mHealth technologies could contribute to significantly reducing the cost of illness of atrial fibrillation.
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a heritable myocardial disease with age-related penetrance. Current guidelines recommend clinical screening of relatives beginning at 10 years of age, but the ...clinical value of this approach has not been systematically evaluated.
Anonymized clinical data were collected from children referred for family screening between 1994 and 2017 after diagnosis of HCM in a first-degree relative.
Of 1198 consecutive children (≤18 years of age) from 594 families who underwent serial evaluation (median, 3.5 years; interquartile range, 1.2-7), 32 individuals met diagnostic criteria at baseline (median maximal left ventricular wall thickness, 13 mm; interquartile range, 8-21 mm), and 25 additional patients developed HCM during follow-up. Median age at diagnosis was 10 years (interquartile range, 4-13 years); 44 (72%) were ≤12 years of age. Median age of affected patients at the last follow-up was 14 years (interquartile range, 9.5-18.2 years). A family history of childhood HCM was more common in those patients diagnosed with HCM (n=32 56% versus n=257 23%; P<0.001). Eighteen patients (32%) were started on medication for symptoms; 2 (4%) underwent a septal myectomy; 14 (25%) received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; 1 underwent cardiac transplantation; 2 had a resuscitated cardiac arrest; and 1 died after a cerebrovascular accident.
Almost 5% of first-degree child relatives undergoing screening meet diagnostic criteria for HCM at first or subsequent evaluations, with the majority presenting as preadolescents; a diagnosis in a child first-degree relative is made in 8% of families screened. The phenotype of familial HCM in childhood is varied and includes severe disease, suggesting that clinical screening should begin at a younger age.
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years ...through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration‐approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow‐up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk‐based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.
Purpose To compare the clinical performance of synthesized two-dimensional (s2D) mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone ...and FFDM combined with DBT in a large community-based screening population by analyzing recall rate, positive predictive value, and cancer detection rate. Materials and Methods This was a retrospective study approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant with waiver of informed consent. A total of 78 810 screening mammograms from October 11, 2011, to June 30, 2016, were retrospectively collected. Of these, 32 076 were FFDM, 30 561 were DBT-FFDM, and 16 173 were DBT-s2D mammograms. Diagnostic performance of FFDM, DBT-FFDM, and DBT-s2D mammography was compared. Statistical significance was determined by using the Pearson χ
test and was expressed as odds ratios and related confidence intervals determined by means of logistic regression analysis with pairwise comparisons. Results Recall rates were significantly lower with DBT-s2D mammography (4.3%, 687 of 16 173) when compared with DBT-FFDM (5.8%, 1785 of 30 561; odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.65, 0.78; P < .0001) and when compared with FFDM alone (8.7%, 2799 of 32 076; odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval: 0.43, 0.51). The cancer detection rate was similar among FFDM alone (5.3 of 1000 screening examinations), DBT-FFDM (6.4 of 1000 screening examinations), and DBT-s2D mammography (6.1 of 1000 screening examinations) with no significant difference (FFDM vs DBT-FFDM, P = .08; FFDM vs DBT-s2D, P = .27). The percentage of invasive cancers detected was significantly higher with DBT-s2D mammography (76.5%) than with DBT-FFDM (61.3%, P = .01), and positive predictive values with DBT-s2D mammography (40.8%) were significantly higher than those with DBT-FFDM (28.5%, P < .0001). Conclusion Screening with DBT-s2D mammography in a large community-based practice improved recall rate and positive predictive values without loss of cancer detection rate when compared with DBT-FFDM and FFDM alone.
RSNA, 2017.
In 2015, the US Preventive Services Task Force updated their hypertension recommendations to advise that adults with elevated office blood pressure (BP) undergo out-of-office BP measurement to ...exclude white coat hypertension before diagnosis. Our goal was to determine the most important barriers to primary care providers' ordering ambulatory and home BP monitoring in the United States. We enrolled 63 primary care providers into nominal group panels in which participants iteratively listed and ranked barriers to ambulatory and home BP monitoring. Top-ranked barriers to ambulatory BP monitoring were challenges in accessing testing, costs of testing, concerns about the willingness or ability of patients to successfully complete tests, and concerns about the accuracy and benefits of testing. Top-ranked barriers to home BP monitoring were concerns about compliance with the correct test protocol, accuracy of tests results, out-of-pocket costs of home BP devices, and time needed to instruct patients on home BP monitoring protocol. Efforts to increase the use of ambulatory and home BP monitoring by primary care providers in the United States should prioritize increasing the financial and personnel resources available for testing and addressing provider concerns about patients' ability to conduct high-quality tests.
Summary Gastric cancer is the second most common cause of death from cancer in Asia. Although surgery is the standard treatment for this disease, early detection and treatment is the only way to ...reduce mortality. This Review summarises the epidemiology of gastric cancer, and the evidence for, and current practices of, screening in Asia. Few Asian countries have implemented a national screening programme for gastric cancer; most have adopted opportunistic screening of high-risk individuals only. Although screening by endoscopy seems to be the most accurate method for detection of gastric cancer, the availability of endoscopic instruments and expertise for mass screening remains questionable—even in developed countries such as Japan. Therefore, barium studies or serum-pepsinogen testing are sometimes used as the initial screening tool in some countries, and patients with abnormal results are screened by endoscopy. Despite the strong link between infection with Helicobacter pylori and gastric cancer, more data are needed to define the role of its eradication in the prevention of gastric cancer in Asia. At present, there is a paucity of quality data from Asia to lend support for screening for gastric cancer.
Cryptococcal meningitis accounts for 15% of AIDS-related mortality. Cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) is detected in blood weeks before onset of meningitis, and CrAg positivity is an independent predictor ...of meningitis and death. CrAg screening for patients with advanced HIV and preemptive treatment is recommended by the World Health Organization, though implementation remains limited. Our objective was to evaluate costs and mortality reduction (lives saved) from a national CrAg screening program across Uganda.
We created a decision analytic model to evaluate CrAg screening. CrAg screening was considered for those with a CD4<100 cells/μL per national and international guidelines, and in the context of a national HIV test-and-treat program where CD4 testing was not available. Costs (2016 USD) were estimated for screening, preemptive therapy, hospitalization, and maintenance therapy. Parameter assumptions were based on large prospective CrAg screening studies in Uganda, and clinical trials from sub Saharan Africa. CrAg positive (CrAg+) persons could be: (a) asymptomatic and thus eligible for preemptive treatment with fluconazole; or (b) symptomatic with meningitis with hospitalization.
In the base case model for 1 million persons with a CD4 test annually, 128,000 with a CD4<100 cells/μL were screened, and 8,233 were asymptomatic CrAg+ and received preemptive therapy. Compared to no screening and treatment, CrAg screening and treatment in the base case cost $3,356,724 compared to doing nothing, and saved 7,320 lives, for a cost of $459 per life saved, with the $3.3 million in cost savings derived from fewer patients developing fulminant meningitis. In the scenario of a national HIV test-and-treat program, of 1 million HIV-infected persons, 800,000 persons were screened, of whom 640,000 returned to clinic, and 8,233 were incident CrAg positive (CrAg prevalence 1.4%). The total cost of a CrAg screening and treatment program was $4.16 million dollars, with 2,180 known deaths. Conversely, without CrAg screening, the cost of treating meningitis was $3.09 million dollars with 3,806 deaths. Thus, despite the very low CrAg prevalence of 1.4% in the general HIV-infected population, and inadequate retention-in-care, CrAg screening averted 43% of deaths from cryptococcal meningitis at a cost of $662 per death averted.
CrAg screening and treatment programs are cost-saving and lifesaving, assuming preemptive treatment is 77% effective in preventing death, and could be adopted and implemented by ministries of health to reduce mortality in those with advanced HIV disease. Even within HIV test-and-treat programs where CD4 testing is not performed, and CrAg prevalence is only 1.4%, CrAg screening is cost-effective.
AbstractObjectiveTo examine the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for the detection of breast cancer in mammography screening practice.DesignSystematic review of test accuracy studies.Data ...sourcesMedline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2010 to 17 May 2021.Eligibility criteriaStudies reporting test accuracy of AI algorithms, alone or in combination with radiologists, to detect cancer in women’s digital mammograms in screening practice, or in test sets. Reference standard was biopsy with histology or follow-up (for screen negative women). Outcomes included test accuracy and cancer type detected.Study selection and synthesisTwo reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A single reviewer extracted data, which were checked by a second reviewer. Narrative data synthesis was performed.ResultsTwelve studies totalling 131 822 screened women were included. No prospective studies measuring test accuracy of AI in screening practice were found. Studies were of poor methodological quality. Three retrospective studies compared AI systems with the clinical decisions of the original radiologist, including 79 910 women, of whom 1878 had screen detected cancer or interval cancer within 12 months of screening. Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than consensus of two or more radiologists. Five smaller studies (1086 women, 520 cancers) at high risk of bias and low generalisability to the clinical context reported that all five evaluated AI systems (as standalone to replace radiologist or as a reader aid) were more accurate than a single radiologist reading a test set in the laboratory. In three studies, AI used for triage screened out 53%, 45%, and 50% of women at low risk but also 10%, 4%, and 0% of cancers detected by radiologists.ConclusionsCurrent evidence for AI does not yet allow judgement of its accuracy in breast cancer screening programmes, and it is unclear where on the clinical pathway AI might be of most benefit. AI systems are not sufficiently specific to replace radiologist double reading in screening programmes. Promising results in smaller studies are not replicated in larger studies. Prospective studies are required to measure the effect of AI in clinical practice. Such studies will require clear stopping rules to ensure that AI does not reduce programme specificity.Study registrationProtocol registered as PROSPERO CRD42020213590.
PDF
