Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Webtool to enhance the accuracy of diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF: a prospective cross‐over study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Webtool to enhance the accuracy of diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF: a prospective cross‐over study
Do you wish to request the book?
Webtool to enhance the accuracy of diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF: a prospective cross‐over study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Webtool to enhance the accuracy of diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF: a prospective cross‐over study
2023
Overview
Aims Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can be challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the potential of a webtool to enhance the scoring accuracy when applying the complex HFA‐PEFF and H2FPEF algorithms, which are commonly used for diagnosing HFpEF. Methods and results We developed an online tool, the HFpEF calculator, that enables the automatic calculation of current HFpEF algorithms. We assessed the accuracy of manual vs. automatic scoring, defined as the percentage of correct scores, in a cohort of cardiologists with varying clinical experience. Cardiologists scored eight online clinical cases using a triple cross‐over design (i.e. two manual–two automatic–two manual–two automatic). Data were analysed in study completers (n = 55, 29% heart failure specialists, 42% general cardiologists, and 29% cardiology residents). Manually calculated scores were correct in 50% (HFA‐PEFF: 50% [50–75]; H2FPEF: 50% [38–50]). Correct scoring improved to 100% using the HFpEF calculator (HFA‐PEFF: 100% [88–100], P < 0.001; H2FPEF: 100% [75–100], P < 0.001). Time spent on clinical cases was similar between scoring methods (±4 min). When corrections for faulty algorithm scores were displayed, cardiologists changed their diagnostic decision in up to 67% of cases. At least 67% of cardiologists preferred using the online tool for future cases in clinical practice. Conclusions Manual calculation of HFpEF diagnostic algorithms is often inaccurate. Using an automated webtool to calculate HFpEF algorithms significantly improved correct scoring. This new approach may impact the eventual diagnostic decision in up to two‐thirds of cases, supporting its routine use in clinical practice.
Publisher
Oxford University Press,John Wiley and Sons Inc,Wiley
Subject
