Table 3

Summary of findings

Review questionIs handheld echocardiography able to accurately diagnose LV dysfunction compared with TTE?
Population6062 participants aged 65±5 years with a male predominance of 54% requiring routine referral for TTE
SettingSingle centres with access to TTE
StudiesStudies of diagnostic tests
Quality of evidenceMajority of studies reported consecutive or random sampling, blinding of assessors and short time between HUD and TTE imaging (24–28 hours)
Pooled resultsSensitivity (95% CI)Specificity (95% CI)
ExperiencedInexperiencedExperiencedInexperienced
LVEF (any abnormality)88 (81 to 92)83 (71 to 90)96 (90 to 98)89 (81 to 93)
LVEF (moderate/severe)93 (89 to 96)84 (72 to 92)96 (87 to 99)91 (83 to 95)
WMA85 (76 to 91)78 (70 to 84)95 (93 to 96)88 (85 to 90)
LV dilatation89 (64 to 97)68 (51 to 81)98 (93 to 99)95 (93 to 96)
LVH85 (72 to 92)80 (61 to 91)91 (82 to 96)87 (67 to 96)
  • HUD, handheld ultrasound devices; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, LV ejection fraction; LVH, LV dilatation and hypertrophy; TTE, transthoracic echocardiography; WMA, wall motion abnormalities.