Electrocardiographic abnormalities in Chagas disease in the general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chagas disease (CD) is a major public health concern in Latin America and a potentially serious emerging threat in non-endemic countries. Although the association between CD and cardiac abnormalities is widely reported, study design diversity, sample size and quality challenge the information, calling for its update and synthesis, which would be very useful and relevant for physicians in non-endemic countries where health care implications of CD are real and neglected. We performed to systematically review and meta-analyze population-based studies that compared prevalence of overall and specific ECG abnormalities between CD and non-CD participants in the general population. METHODS: Six databases (EMBASE, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar and Lilacs) were searched systematically. Observational studies were included. Odds ratios (OR) were computed using random-effects model. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were selected, including 34,023(12,276 CD and 21,747 non-CD). Prevalence of overall ECG abnormalities was higher in participants with CD (40.1%; 95%CIs=39.2-41.0) compared to non-CD (24.1%; 95%CIs=23.5-24.7) (OR=2.78; 95%CIs=2.37-3.26). Among specific ECG abnormalities, prevalence of complete right bundle branch block (RBBB) (OR=4.60; 95%CIs=2.97-7.11), left anterior fascicular block (LAFB) (OR=1.60; 95%CIs=1.21-2.13), combination of complete RBBB/LAFB (OR=3.34; 95%CIs=1.76-6.35), first-degree atrioventricular block (A-V B) (OR=1.71; 95%CIs=1.25-2.33), atrial fibrillation (AF) or flutter (OR=2.11; 95%CIs=1.40-3.19) and ventricular extrasystoles (VE) (OR=1.62; 95%CIs=1.14-2.30) was higher in CD compared to non-CD participants. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an update and synthesis in this field. This research of observational studies indicates a significant excess in prevalence of ECG abnormalities (40.1%) related to T. cruzi infection in the general population from Chagas endemic regions, being the most common ventricular (RBBB and LAFB), and A-V B (first-degree) node conduction abnormalities as well as arrhythmias (AF or flutter and VE). Also, prevalence of ECG alterations in children was similar to that in adults and suggests earlier onset of cardiac disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".