Jack W O'Sullivan1,2, Sam Grigg3, William Crawford4, Mintu P Turakhia1,5,6, Marco Perez1, Erik Ingelsson1,7,8, Matthew T Wheeler1, John P A Ioannidis2,9,10, Euan A Ashley1,11. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 2. Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Oxford University Medical School, Oxford, United Kingdom. 5. Center for Digital Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 6. Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. 7. Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 8. Stanford Diabetes Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 9. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 10. Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 11. Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Abstract
Importance: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects more than 6 million people in the United States; however, much AF remains undiagnosed. Given that more than 265 million people in the United States own smartphones (>80% of the population), smartphone applications have been proposed for detecting AF, but the accuracy of these applications remains unclear. Objective: To determine the accuracy of smartphone camera applications that diagnose AF. Data Sources and Study Selection: MEDLINE and Embase were searched until January 2019 for studies that assessed the accuracy of any smartphone applications that use the smartphone's camera to measure the amplitude and frequency of the user's fingertip pulse to diagnose AF. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were constructed to synthesize data. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity and specificity were measured with bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. To simulate the use of these applications as a screening tool, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for different population groups (ie, age ≥65 years and age ≥65 years with hypertension) were modeled. Lastly, the association of methodological limitations with outcomes were analyzed with sensitivity analyses and metaregressions. Results: A total of 10 primary diagnostic accuracy studies, with 3852 participants and 4 applications, were included. The oldest studies were published in 2016 (2 studies [20.0%]), while most studies (4 [40.0%]) were published in 2018. The applications analyzed the pulsewave signal for a mean (range) of 2 (1-5) minutes. The meta-analyzed sensitivity and specificity for all applications combined were 94.2% (95% CI, 92.2%-95.7%) and 95.8% (95% CI, 92.4%-97.7%), respectively. The PPV for smartphone camera applications detecting AF in an asymptomatic population aged 65 years and older was between 19.3% (95% CI, 19.2%-19.4%) and 37.5% (95% CI, 37.4%-37.6%), and the NPV was between 99.8% (95% CI, 99.83%-99.84%) and 99.9% (95% CI, 99.94%-99.95%). The PPV and NPV increased for individuals aged 65 years and older with hypertension (PPV, 20.5% [95% CI, 20.4%-20.6%] to 39.2% [95% CI, 39.1%-39.3%]; NPV, 99.8% [95% CI, 99.8%-99.8%] to 99.9% [95% CI, 99.9%-99.9%]). There were methodological limitations in a number of studies that did not appear to be associated with diagnostic performance, but this could not be definitively excluded given the sparsity of the data. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, all smartphone camera applications had relatively high sensitivity and specificity. The modeled NPV was high for all analyses, but the PPV was modest, suggesting that using these applications in an asymptomatic population may generate a higher number of false-positive than true-positive results. Future research should address the accuracy of these applications when screening other high-risk population groups, their ability to help monitor chronic AF, and, ultimately, their associations with patient-important outcomes.
Importance: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects more than 6 million people in the United States; however, much AF remains undiagnosed. Given that more than 265 million people in the United States own smartphones (>80% of the population), smartphone applications have been proposed for detecting AF, but the accuracy of these applications remains unclear. Objective: To determine the accuracy of smartphone camera applications that diagnose AF. Data Sources and Study Selection: MEDLINE and Embase were searched until January 2019 for studies that assessed the accuracy of any smartphone applications that use the smartphone's camera to measure the amplitude and frequency of the user's fingertip pulse to diagnose AF. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were constructed to synthesize data. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity and specificity were measured with bivariate random-effects meta-analysis. To simulate the use of these applications as a screening tool, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for different population groups (ie, age ≥65 years and age ≥65 years with hypertension) were modeled. Lastly, the association of methodological limitations with outcomes were analyzed with sensitivity analyses and metaregressions. Results: A total of 10 primary diagnostic accuracy studies, with 3852 participants and 4 applications, were included. The oldest studies were published in 2016 (2 studies [20.0%]), while most studies (4 [40.0%]) were published in 2018. The applications analyzed the pulsewave signal for a mean (range) of 2 (1-5) minutes. The meta-analyzed sensitivity and specificity for all applications combined were 94.2% (95% CI, 92.2%-95.7%) and 95.8% (95% CI, 92.4%-97.7%), respectively. The PPV for smartphone camera applications detecting AF in an asymptomatic population aged 65 years and older was between 19.3% (95% CI, 19.2%-19.4%) and 37.5% (95% CI, 37.4%-37.6%), and the NPV was between 99.8% (95% CI, 99.83%-99.84%) and 99.9% (95% CI, 99.94%-99.95%). The PPV and NPV increased for individuals aged 65 years and older with hypertension (PPV, 20.5% [95% CI, 20.4%-20.6%] to 39.2% [95% CI, 39.1%-39.3%]; NPV, 99.8% [95% CI, 99.8%-99.8%] to 99.9% [95% CI, 99.9%-99.9%]). There were methodological limitations in a number of studies that did not appear to be associated with diagnostic performance, but this could not be definitively excluded given the sparsity of the data. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, all smartphone camera applications had relatively high sensitivity and specificity. The modeled NPV was high for all analyses, but the PPV was modest, suggesting that using these applications in an asymptomatic population may generate a higher number of false-positive than true-positive results. Future research should address the accuracy of these applications when screening other high-risk population groups, their ability to help monitor chronic AF, and, ultimately, their associations with patient-important outcomes.
Authors: Niraj Varma; Iwona Cygankiewicz; Mintu P Turakhia; Hein Heidbuchel; Yu-Feng Hu; Lin Yee Chen; Jean-Philippe Couderc; Edmond M Cronin; Jerry D Estep; Lars Grieten; Deirdre A Lane; Reena Mehra; Alex Page; Rod Passman; Jonathan P Piccini; Ewa Piotrowicz; Ryszard Piotrowicz; Pyotr G Platonov; Antonio Luiz Ribeiro; Robert E Rich; Andrea M Russo; David Slotwiner; Jonathan S Steinberg; Emma Svennberg Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2021-02-12
Authors: Albert K Feeny; Mina K Chung; Anant Madabhushi; Zachi I Attia; Maja Cikes; Marjan Firouznia; Paul A Friedman; Matthew M Kalscheur; Suraj Kapa; Sanjiv M Narayan; Peter A Noseworthy; Rod S Passman; Marco V Perez; Nicholas S Peters; Jonathan P Piccini; Khaldoun G Tarakji; Suma A Thomas; Natalia A Trayanova; Mintu P Turakhia; Paul J Wang Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-07-06
Authors: Niraj Varma; Iwona Cygankiewicz; Mintu P Turakhia; Hein Heidbuchel; Yufeng Hu; Lin Yee Chen; Jean-Philippe Couderc; Edmond M Cronin; Jerry D Estep; Lars Grieten; Deirdre A Lane; Reena Mehra; Alex Page; Rod Passman; Jonathan P Piccini; Ewa Piotrowicz; Ryszard Piotrowicz; Pyotr G Platonov; Antonio Luiz Ribeiro; Robert E Rich; Andrea M Russo; David Slotwiner; Jonathan S Steinberg; Emma Svennberg Journal: Cardiovasc Digit Health J Date: 2021-01-29
Authors: Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Christopher D Anderson; Barbara Casadei; Lin Y Chen; Harry J G M Crijns; Ben Freedman; Mellanie True Hills; Jeff S Healey; Hooman Kamel; Dong-Yun Kim; Mark S Link; Renato D Lopes; Steven A Lubitz; David D McManus; Peter A Noseworthy; Marco V Perez; Jonathan P Piccini; Renate B Schnabel; Daniel E Singer; Robert G Tieleman; Mintu P Turakhia; Isabelle C Van Gelder; Lawton S Cooper; Sana M Al-Khatib Journal: Circulation Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jack W O'Sullivan; Anna Shcherbina; Johanne M Justesen; Mintu Turakhia; Marco Perez; Hannah Wand; Catherine Tcheandjieu; Shoa L Clarke; Manuel A Rivas; Euan A Ashley Journal: Circ Genom Precis Med Date: 2021-06-15
Authors: Konstanze Betz; Rachel van der Velden; Monika Gawalko; Astrid Hermans; Nikki Pluymaekers; Henrike A K Hillmann; Jeroen Hendriks; David Duncker; Dominik Linz Journal: Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol Date: 2021-07-24