Standard echocardiography versus handheld echocardiography for the detection of subclinical rheumatic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Issue 10 (29th October 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Telford, Lisa Helen; Abdullahi, Leila Hussein; Ochodo, Eleanor Atieno; Zuhlke, Liesl Joanna; Engel, Mark Emmanuel
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 10:Issue 10(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-10-29
• Subjects: echocardiography -- paediatric cardiology -- valvular heart disease -- public health -- cardiovascular imaging; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038449
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To summarise the accuracy of handheld echocardiography (HAND) which, if shown to be sufficiently similar to that of standard echocardiography (STAND), could usher in a new age of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) screening in endemic areas. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: PubMed, Scopus, EBSCOHost and ISI Web of Science were initially searched on 27 September 2017 and again on 3 March 2020 for studies published from 2012 onwards. Eligibility criteria: Studies assessing the accuracy of HAND compared with STAND when performed by an experienced cardiologist in conjunction with the 2012 World Heart Federation criteria among populations of children and adolescents living in endemic areas were included. Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies against review-specific Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 criteria. A meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model was conducted to produce summary results of sensitivity and specificity. Forest plots and scatter plots in receiver operating characteristic space in combination with subgroup analyses were used to investigate heterogeneity. Publication bias was not investigated. Results: Six studies (N=4208) were included in the analysis. For any RHD detection, the pooled results from six studies were as follows: sensitivity: 81.56% (95% CI 76.52% to 86.61%) and specificity: 89.75% (84.48% to 95.01%). Meta-analytical results from five of the six included studies were as follows: sensitivity: 91.06% (80.46% to 100%) and specificity: 91.96% (85.57% to 98.36%) for the detection of definite RHD only and sensitivity: 62.01% (31.80% to 92.22%) and specificity: 82.33% (65.15% to 99.52%) for the detection of borderline RHD only. Conclusions: HAND displayed good accuracy for detecting definite RHD only and modest accuracy for detecting any RHD but demonstrated poor accuracy for the detection of borderline RHD alone. Findings from this review provide some evidence for the potential of HAND to increase access to echocardiographic screening for RHD in resource-limited and remote settings; however, further research into feasibility and cost-effectiveness of wide-scale screening is still needed. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016051261.