Quality of athlete screening for high‐risk cardiovascular conditions—A systematic review

Author:

Panhuyzen‐Goedkoop Nicole M.12ORCID,Verbeek André L. M.3,Goedkoop René J.4,Malekzadeh Arjan5,Wilde Arthur A. M.1,Peters Ron J. G.1,Jørstad Harald T.1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Cardiology Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Heart Centre Amsterdam The Netherlands

2. Sports Medical Centre Papendal Arnhem The Netherlands

3. Department for Health Evidence Radboud University Medical Centre Nijmegen The Netherlands

4. Shogu Consulting Le Châble Switzerland

5. University Library Amsterdam University Medical Centers Amsterdam The Netherlands

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundSudden cardiac death (SCD) is the leading medical cause of death in athletes. To prevent SCD, screening for high‐risk cardiovascular conditions (HRCC) is recommended. Screening strategies are based on a limited number of studies and expert consensus. However, evidence and efficacy of athlete HRCC screening is unclear.ObjectiveTo determine methodological quality and quality of evidence of athlete screening, and screening efficacy to detect HRCC in a systematic review.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of Medline, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library up to June 2021. We included articles containing original data of athlete cardiovascular screening, providing details of screening strategies, test results and HRCC detection. We assessed methodological quality of the included articles by QUADAS‐2, quality of evidence of athlete HRCC screening by GRADE, and athlete HRCC screening efficacy by SWiM.ResultsOf 2720 citations, we included 33 articles (1991–2018), comprising 82 417 athletes (26.7% elite, 73.4% competitive, 21.7% women, 75.2% aged ≤35). Methodological quality was ‘very low’ (33 articles), caused by absence of data blinding and inappropriate statistical analysis. Quality of evidence was ‘very low’ (33 articles), due to observational designs and population heterogeneity. Screening efficacy could not be reliably established. The prevalence of HRCC was 0.43% with false positive rate (FPR) 13.0%.ConclusionsMethodological quality and quality of evidence on athlete screening are suboptimal. Efficacy could not be reliably established. The prevalence of screen detected HRCC was very low and FPR high. Given the limitations of the evidence, individual recommendations need to be prudent.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3