Responses

Download PDFPDF

Original research article
Cardiac auscultation poorly predicts the presence of valvular heart disease in asymptomatic primary care patients
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Predictive value of cardiac auscultation for the assessment of valvular heart disease
    • Lucia Baris, Research fellow Erasmus MC
    • Other Contributors:
      • Boudewijn Klop, Cardiology resident
      • Jaap van Waning, Cardiology resident
      • Ewout-Jan van den Bos, Cardiologist

    Gardezi and colleagues (1) report on the limited accuracy for detection of valvular heart disease (VHD) by cardiac auscultation in asymptomatic patients in primary care. VHD was categorized as either mild or significant and cardiac auscultation was dichotomized in either a present or absent murmur. The authors propose a low sensitivity and modest specificity of cardiac auscultation by general practitioners and by cardiologists to assess VHD.
    However, the authors underestimated the specificity and positive predictive value of cardiac auscultation for the assessment of VHD. Patients with a cardiac murmur in whom, by transthoracic echocardiography, mild VHD was detected were included in the ‘negative’ group for assessing significant VHD and more importantly, vice versa. By doing so, many murmurs are classified as false-positive although VHD was present, either mild or significant. We believe that the “true negative” group only includes those patients without any VHD on echocardiography. This would increase the specificity of cardiac auscultation by general practitioners from 67% to 76% and from 81% to 93% for cardiologists, which results in much higher positive predictive values for significant VHD. While it does not change the reported low sensitivity of cardiac auscultation, which remains rather unsatisfactory, this perspective would make the conclusions of this paper at least a little less detrimental to the good old stethoscope.

    References
    1. Gardezi S...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.