MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3083399130 · doi:10.2196/20496

Use of mHealth Devices to Screen for Atrial Fibrillation: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

2020· article· en· W3083399130 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Godwin Denk Giebel

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg
KeywordsmHealthMedicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)PhotoplethysmogramDiabetes mellitusEmergency medicineHeart failureMedical emergencyPhysical therapyInternal medicinePsychological interventionComputer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background With an estimated prevalence of around 3% and an about 2.5-fold increased risk of stroke, atrial fibrillation (AF) is a serious threat for patients and a high economic burden for health care systems all over the world. Patients with AF could benefit from screening through mobile health (mHealth) devices. Thus, an early diagnosis is possible with mHealth devices, and the risk for stroke can be markedly reduced by using anticoagulation therapy. Objective The aim of this work was to assess the cost-effectiveness of algorithm-based screening for AF with the aid of photoplethysmography wrist-worn mHealth devices. Even if prevented strokes and prevented deaths from stroke are the most relevant patient outcomes, direct costs were defined as the primary outcome. Methods A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted based on a developed state-transition model; 30,000 patients for each CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age≥75 years, Diabetes mellitus, Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex category [female]) score from 1 to 9 were simulated. The first simulation served to estimate the economic burden of AF without the use of mHealth devices. The second simulation served to simulate the economic burden of AF with the use of mHealth devices. Afterwards, the groups were compared in terms of costs, prevented strokes, and deaths from strokes. Results The CHA2DS2-VASc score as well as the electrocardiography (ECG) confirmation rate had the biggest impact on costs as well as number of strokes. The higher the risk score, the lower were the costs per prevented stroke. Higher ECG confirmation rates intensified this effect. The effect was not seen in groups with lower risk scores. Over 10 years, the use of mHealth (assuming a 75% ECG confirmation rate) resulted in additional costs (€1=US $1.12) of €441, €567, €536, €520, €606, €625, €623, €692, and €847 per patient for a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1 to 9, respectively. The number of prevented strokes tended to be higher in groups with high risk for stroke. Higher ECG confirmation rates led to higher numbers of prevented strokes. The use of mHealth (assuming a 75% ECG confirmation rate) resulted in 25 (7), –68 (–54), 98 (–5), 266 (182), 346 (271), 642 (440), 722 (599), 1111 (815), and 1116 (928) prevented strokes (fatal) for CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1 to 9, respectively. Higher device accuracy in terms of sensitivity led to even more prevented fatal strokes. Conclusions The use of mHealth devices to screen for AF leads to increased costs but also a reduction in the incidence of stroke. In particular, in patients with high CHA2DS2-VASc scores, the risk for stroke and death from stroke can be markedly reduced.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.256
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→