Cited by 6Atrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring

Predictive validity of automated oscillometric blood pressure monitors for screening atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Park, Seong-Hi, June, Kyung Ja, Choi, Yun-Kyoung·2019·Expert Review of Medical Devices

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17434440.2019.1620102

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 42 · Cited by 6

Authors
Park, S.-H., June, K. J., & Choi, Y.-K.
Affiliations
  • Soonchunhyang University (KR)
  • Korea National Open University (KR)
Corresponding author
Choi, Yun-Kyoung
Venue
Expert Review of Medical Devices
Published
2019-06-03
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
503-514
ISSN
  • 1743-4440 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-2422
OpenAlex
W2945254880
Cited by
6
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Expert Review of Medical Devices (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Soonchunhyang University (None)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Keywords
atrial fibrillation, sphygmomanometer, atrial fibrillation screening, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, elderly patients, stroke prevention
MeSH terms
Atrial Fibrillation, Automation, Humans, Mass Screening, Oscillometry, Blood Pressure Monitors, Publication Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review