Cargando…

A systematic review of cardiac in-silico clinical trials

Computational models of the heart are now being used to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of interventions through in-silico clinical trials (ISCTs). As the adoption and acceptance of ISCTs increases, best practices for reporting the methodology and analysing the results will emerge. Focusing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rodero, Cristobal, Baptiste, Tiffany M G, Barrows, Rosie K, Keramati, Hamed, Sillett, Charles P, Strocchi, Marina, Lamata, Pablo, Niederer, Steven A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: IOP Publishing 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10286106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37360227
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2516-1091/acdc71
_version_ 1785061683586138112
author Rodero, Cristobal
Baptiste, Tiffany M G
Barrows, Rosie K
Keramati, Hamed
Sillett, Charles P
Strocchi, Marina
Lamata, Pablo
Niederer, Steven A
author_facet Rodero, Cristobal
Baptiste, Tiffany M G
Barrows, Rosie K
Keramati, Hamed
Sillett, Charles P
Strocchi, Marina
Lamata, Pablo
Niederer, Steven A
author_sort Rodero, Cristobal
collection PubMed
description Computational models of the heart are now being used to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of interventions through in-silico clinical trials (ISCTs). As the adoption and acceptance of ISCTs increases, best practices for reporting the methodology and analysing the results will emerge. Focusing in the area of cardiology, we aim to evaluate the types of ISCTs, their analysis methods and their reporting standards. To this end, we conducted a systematic review of cardiac ISCTs over the period of 1 January 2012–1 January 2022, following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA). We considered cardiac ISCTs of human patient cohorts, and excluded studies of single individuals and those in which models were used to guide a procedure without comparing against a control group. We identified 36 publications that described cardiac ISCTs, with most of the studies coming from the US and the UK. In [Formula: see text] of the studies, a validation step was performed, although the specific type of validation varied between the studies. ANSYS FLUENT was the most commonly used software in [Formula: see text] of ISCTs. The specific software used was not reported in [Formula: see text] of the studies. Unlike clinical trials, we found a lack of consistent reporting of patient demographics, with [Formula: see text] of the studies not reporting them. Uncertainty quantification was limited, with sensitivity analysis performed in only [Formula: see text] of the studies. In [Formula: see text] of the ISCTs, no link was provided to provide easy access to the data or models used in the study. There was no consistent naming of study types with a wide range of studies that could potentially be considered ISCTs. There is a clear need for community agreement on minimal reporting standards on patient demographics, accepted standards for ISCT cohort quality control, uncertainty quantification, and increased model and data sharing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10286106
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher IOP Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102861062023-06-23 A systematic review of cardiac in-silico clinical trials Rodero, Cristobal Baptiste, Tiffany M G Barrows, Rosie K Keramati, Hamed Sillett, Charles P Strocchi, Marina Lamata, Pablo Niederer, Steven A Prog Biomed Eng (Bristol) Topical Review Computational models of the heart are now being used to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of interventions through in-silico clinical trials (ISCTs). As the adoption and acceptance of ISCTs increases, best practices for reporting the methodology and analysing the results will emerge. Focusing in the area of cardiology, we aim to evaluate the types of ISCTs, their analysis methods and their reporting standards. To this end, we conducted a systematic review of cardiac ISCTs over the period of 1 January 2012–1 January 2022, following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA). We considered cardiac ISCTs of human patient cohorts, and excluded studies of single individuals and those in which models were used to guide a procedure without comparing against a control group. We identified 36 publications that described cardiac ISCTs, with most of the studies coming from the US and the UK. In [Formula: see text] of the studies, a validation step was performed, although the specific type of validation varied between the studies. ANSYS FLUENT was the most commonly used software in [Formula: see text] of ISCTs. The specific software used was not reported in [Formula: see text] of the studies. Unlike clinical trials, we found a lack of consistent reporting of patient demographics, with [Formula: see text] of the studies not reporting them. Uncertainty quantification was limited, with sensitivity analysis performed in only [Formula: see text] of the studies. In [Formula: see text] of the ISCTs, no link was provided to provide easy access to the data or models used in the study. There was no consistent naming of study types with a wide range of studies that could potentially be considered ISCTs. There is a clear need for community agreement on minimal reporting standards on patient demographics, accepted standards for ISCT cohort quality control, uncertainty quantification, and increased model and data sharing. IOP Publishing 2023-07-01 2023-06-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10286106/ /pubmed/37360227 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2516-1091/acdc71 Text en © 2023 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
spellingShingle Topical Review
Rodero, Cristobal
Baptiste, Tiffany M G
Barrows, Rosie K
Keramati, Hamed
Sillett, Charles P
Strocchi, Marina
Lamata, Pablo
Niederer, Steven A
A systematic review of cardiac in-silico clinical trials
title A systematic review of cardiac in-silico clinical trials
title_full A systematic review of cardiac in-silico clinical trials
title_fullStr A systematic review of cardiac in-silico clinical trials
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of cardiac in-silico clinical trials
title_short A systematic review of cardiac in-silico clinical trials
title_sort systematic review of cardiac in-silico clinical trials
topic Topical Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10286106/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37360227
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2516-1091/acdc71
work_keys_str_mv AT roderocristobal asystematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT baptistetiffanymg asystematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT barrowsrosiek asystematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT keramatihamed asystematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT sillettcharlesp asystematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT strocchimarina asystematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT lamatapablo asystematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT niedererstevena asystematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT roderocristobal systematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT baptistetiffanymg systematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT barrowsrosiek systematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT keramatihamed systematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT sillettcharlesp systematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT strocchimarina systematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT lamatapablo systematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials
AT niedererstevena systematicreviewofcardiacinsilicoclinicaltrials