ArticleBMC family practice2019
How do Dutch general practitioners detect and diagnose atrial fibrillation? Results of an online case vignette study.
Article in BMC family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening and detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care: current practice and future perspectives.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the introduction of a single-lead ECG device and digital cardiologist consultation platform among general practitioners in the Netherlands.Primary health care research & development · 2024Observational
- Time Trends in Patient Characteristics, Anticoagulation Treatment, and Prognosis of Incident Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation in the Netherlands.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- How is atrial fibrillation detected in everyday healthcare? Results of a Dutch cohort study.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2023Article
- Consumer-Led Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: Frontier Review of the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration.Circulation · 2022Review
- Experiences with screening for atrial fibrillation: a qualitative study in general practice.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Predictors, time course, and outcomes of persistence patterns in oral anticoagulation for non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a Dutch Nationwide Cohort Study.European heart journal · 2021Article
- Correction to: How do Dutch general practitioners detect and diagnose atrial fibrillation? Results of an online case vignette study.BMC family practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetection and treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) are important given the serious health consequences. AF may be silent or paroxysmal and remain undetected. It is unclear whether general practitioners (GPs) have appropriate equipment and optimally utilise it to detect AF. This case vignette study aimed to describe current practice and to explore possible improvements to optimise AF detection.
methodsBetween June and July 2017, we performed an online case vignette study among Dutch GPs. We aimed at obtaining at least 75 responses to the questionnaire. We collected demographics and asked GPs' opinion on their knowledge and experience in diagnosing AF. GPs could indicate which diagnostic tools they have for AF. In six case vignettes with varying symptom frequency and physical signs, they could make diagnostic choices. The last questions covered screening and actions after diagnosing AF. We compared the answers to the Dutch guideline for GPs on AF.
resultsSeventy-six GPs completed the questionnaire. Seventy-four GPs (97%) thought they have enough knowledge and 72 (95%) enough experience to diagnose AF. Seventy-four GPs (97%) could order or perform ECGs without the interference of a cardiologist. In case of frequent symptoms of AF, 36-40% would choose short-term (i.e. 24-48 h) and 11-19% long-term (i.e. 7 days, 14 days or 1 month) monitoring. In case of non-frequent symptoms, 29-31% would choose short-term and 21-30% long-term monitoring. If opportunistic screening in primary care proves to be effective, 83% (58/70) will support it.
conclusionsResponding GPs report to have adequate equipment, knowledge, and experience to detect and diagnose AF. Almost all participants can order ECGs. Reported monitoring duration was shorter than recommended by the guideline. AF detection could improve by increasing the monitoring duration.
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.