ArticleOpen heart
Diagnostic accuracies of screening for atrial fibrillation by cardiac nurses versus radiographers.
Article in Open heart. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-World Accuracy of Wearable Activity Trackers for Detecting Medical Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Pooled it
- Atrial fibrillation in Retinal Artery Occlusions.Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: We examined the diagnostic accuracy of single-lead ECG as assessed by radiographers and 12-lead ECG as assessed by cardiac nurses for the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: Based on the Danish Cardiovascular Screening Trial, we conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study of 1338 randomly selected Danish men aged 65-74 years with no exclusion criteria. The participants were screened with single-lead ECG during a CT scan assessed by radiographers and 12-lead ECG assessed by cardiac nurses. The diagnostic accuracy was evaluated compared with that produced by a 12-lead ECG assessed by two consenting cardiologists. Results: The study identified 68 participants with ongoing AF, of whom 60 had self-reported AF and 8 had AF detected in the screening. Single-lead ECG assessed for AF by radiographers had a sensitivity of 60.3% (95% CI 47.7 to 72.0), specificity of 97.2% (95% CI 96.2 to 98.1), positive predictive value (PPV) of 53.9% (95% CI 42.1 to 65.5) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.9% (95% CI 96.9 to 98.6). 12-lead ECG assessed by cardiac nurses had a sensitivity of 97.1% (95% CI 89.8 to 99.6), specificity of 100% (95% CI 99.7 to 100), PPV of 100% (95% CI 94.6 to 100) and NPV of 99.8% (95% CI 99.4 to 100). Conclusions: Single-lead ECG assessed by radiographers had a moderate sensitivity and PPV but a very high specificity and NPV. Using radiographers may be acceptable for opportunistic screening, in particular if radiographers are thoroughly trained. Thus, 12-lead ECG assessed by cardiac nurses is a potential diagnostic method for the detection of AF.
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.