Review of electrocardiographic abnormalities among people living with HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Electrocardiographic (ECG) abnormalities are increasingly being reported among people living with HIV (PLWH). However, the exact prevalence of ECG abnormalities among PLWH in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), a region with one of the highest burdens of HIV, is not known. Through a systematic review, we determined the prevalence and patterns of ECG abnormalities among PLWH in SSA. METHODS: We conducted a search in online databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Research for Life for studies published between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2020. Studies reporting any form of ECG abnormalities published in English were screened and reviewed for eligibility. Retrieved studies were assessed for validity using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data was summarized qualitatively, and ECG abnormalities were further subcategorized into rate, conduction, and rhythm abnormalities as well as atrial and ventricular enlargements. RESULTS: We retrieved seventeen of the 219 studies assessed for eligibility published between 2001 and 2020, with a total of 2,572 eligible participants. The mean age of the participants ranged between 6.8 years and 58.6 years. Of the 17 studies, 8 (47%) were case-control, 6 (35.3%) cross-sectional and 3 (17.6%) were cohort in design. Thirteen studies were conducted in the adult population while four were conducted in the pediatric population. The prevalence of ECG abnormalities ranged from 10% to 81% and 6.7% to 26.5% in the adult and pediatric population respectively. Among studies done in the adult population, conduction abnormalities were the most reported (9 studies) with a prevalence ranging from 3.4% to 53.5%. In the pediatric population, rate abnormalities were the most reported (4 studies) with a prevalence ranging from 3.9% to 20.9%. The heterogeneity in results could be attributed to the absence of uniform criteria to define ECG abnormalities. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight a high prevalence of ECG abnormalities among PLWH in SSA. Consideration of ECG in the comprehensive evaluation of cardiac dysfunction among PLWH in SSA maybe warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".