Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31811716›Full record

ReviewEuropean heart journal2020

Screening for atrial fibrillation: a call for evidence.

Nicholas R Jones, Clare J Taylor, F D Richard Hobbs, Louise Bowman, Barbara Casadei

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European heart journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
16.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. The B-SCancers · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. mScience China. Life sciences · 2025
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicholas R JonesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
Clare J TaylorNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
F D Richard HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
Louise BowmanMRC Population Health Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Barbara CasadeiRadcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Level 6 West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.
University of Oxford · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/12/3/29609British Heart Foundation RG/18/6/33576Department of Health IS-SPC-0514-10043Medical Research Council G9900264Medical Research Council MC_PC_11004Medical Research Council MC_U137686861Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203921/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and prevalence is predicted to double over the next 30 years due to changing demographics and the rise in prevalence of risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes. Atrial fibrillation is associated with a five-fold increased stroke risk, but anticoagulation in eligible patients can reduce this risk by around 65%. Many people with AF currently go undetected and therefore untreated, either because they are asymptomatic or because they have paroxysmal AF. Screening has been suggested as one approach to increase AF detection rates and reduce the incidence of ischaemic stroke by earlier initiation of anticoagulation therapy. However, international taskforces currently recommend against screening, citing the cost implications and uncertainty over the benefits of a systematic screening programme compared to usual care. A number of large randomized controlled trials have commenced to determine the cost-effectiveness and clinical benefit of screening using a range of devices and across different populations. The recent AppleWatch study demonstrates how advances in technology are providing the public with self-screening devices that are increasingly affordable and accessible. Health care professionals should be aware of the implications of these emerging data for diagnostic pathways and treatment. This review provides an overview of the gaps in the current evidence and a summary of the arguments for and against screening.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationBrain IschemiaStrokeAnticoagulantsCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansMass ScreeningAnticoagulantsAnticoagulationAtrial fibrillationScreeningStroke

Identifiers

PMID31811716
PMCPMC7060457
OpenAlexW2990444645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.