Abstract
Background Globally, coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major public health issue because it significantly increases mortality and medical expenses. In the recent years, magnetocardiography (MCG) has shown its potential as a new tool for diagnosing CHD. However, the quantitative assessment of MCG currently used for CHD diagnosis are insufficient, preventing its full integration into routine clinical practice.
Methods We searched PubMed (including MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published up to March 4, 2023. We systematically searched for studies that compare MCG (as the index test) with coronary angiography (as the standard reference) for diagnosing CHD in suspected population. Three authors assessed the quality of the included studies independently using the QUADAS-2 tool. We calculated the pooled value of the sensitivity and specificity of MCG using the bivariate model. To investigate clinical and methodological factors that might contribute to the statistical heterogeneity, we used meta-regression and subgroup analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis has been conformed to PRISMA guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022332272).
Results By searching, we found 174 studies, 18 of them included 2,571 subjects from 6 countries and regions and met the inclusion criteria. The combined values for sensitivity and specificity are 86% (95% CI: 80-91) and 79% (95% CI: 71-86), respectively. The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve’s area under the curve was 0.90. We found significant statistical heterogeneity between studies (for sensitivity, I2=94.22% (95% CI: 92.48-95.96), Q=294.11, P<0.01; for specificity, I2=88.98% (95% CI: 84.95-93.01), Q=154.26, P<0.01.
Conclusion Given its high sensitivity, MCG has a high value for diagnosing CHD, especially in primary screening. Further investigation is required to examine additional factors that may affect the performance of MCG considering the limited clinical trials and sample size.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Basic Scientific Research Project of Liaoning Provincial Department of Education (LJKMZ20221186), Shenyang Public Health Research and Development Project (22-321-33-14), 345 Talent Project.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data sharing is not available for this article, as no data sets were generated or analyzed during the current study period.
