ArticlePloS one2015
An automated clinical alert system for newly-diagnosed atrial fibrillation.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stepped-wedge randomised trial to evaluate population health intervention designed to increase appropriate anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Trial
- Electronic physician notifications to improve guideline-based anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Electronic Clinical Decision Support System for Stroke Risk Screening in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in Mental Health Care: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR cardio · 2025Article
- Improvement of Oral Anticoagulant Prescription and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation After Implementation of a Clinical Decision Support System in Outpatient Practice.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Observational
- Assessing the Benefit of a Digital Pain Alert System in a Community Hospital.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Effect of clinic-based single-lead electrocardiogram rhythm assessment on oral anticoagulation prescriptions in patients with previously diagnosed atrial fibrillation.Heart rhythm O2 · 2023Article
- Prescribing of anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in primary care.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2022Observational
- Building a Precision Medicine Delivery Platform for Clinics: The University of California, San Francisco, BRIDGE Experience.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Article
- The Effect of a Clinical Decision Support System on Improving Adherence to Guideline in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: An Interrupted Time Series Study.Journal of medical systems · 2017Article
- Effects of Computerized Decision Support Systems on Management of Atrial Fibrillation: A Scoping Review.Journal of atrial fibrillationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveClinical decision support systems that notify providers of abnormal test results have produced mixed results. We sought to develop, implement, and evaluate the impact of a computer-based clinical alert system intended to improve atrial fibrillation stroke prophylaxis, and identify reasons providers do not implement a guideline-concordant response. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a cohort study with historical controls among patients at a tertiary care hospital. We developed a decision rule to identify newly-diagnosed atrial fibrillation, automatically notify providers, and direct them to online evidence-based management guidelines. We tracked all notifications from December 2009 to February 2010 (notification period) and applied the same decision rule to all patients from December 2008 to February 2009 (control period). Primary outcomes were accuracy of notification (confirmed through chart review) and prescription of warfarin within 30 days.
resultsDuring the notification period 604 notifications were triggered, of which 268 (44%) were confirmed as newly-diagnosed atrial fibrillation. The notifications not confirmed as newly-diagnosed involved patients with no recent electrocardiogram at our institution. Thirty-four of 125 high-risk patients (27%) received warfarin in the notification period, compared with 34 of 94 (36%) in the control period (odds ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.37-1.17]; p = 0.16). Common reasons to not prescribe warfarin (identified from chart review of 151 patients) included upcoming surgical procedure, choice to use aspirin, and discrepancy between clinical notes and the medication record.
conclusionsAn automated system to identify newly-diagnosed atrial fibrillation, notify providers, and encourage access to management guidelines did not change provider behaviors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.