ArticleBMC family practice2020
Screening for atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias in primary care.
Article in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Key stakeholder views on atrial fibrillation screening: a systematic mixed-studies review and interpretive analysis.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Annual Atrial Fibrillation Screening Compared with Current Opportunistic Screening in Australian Primary Care: A Model-Based Economic Evaluation.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Article
- Zolpidem use and the risk of arrhythmia: A nationwide population-based cohort study in Taiwan.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2026Article
- The role of atrial fibrillation in vascular cognitive impairment and dementia: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and preventive strategies.GeroScience · 2025Review
- Global implementation and evaluation of atrial fibrillation screening in the past two decades - a narrative review.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2024Review
- High Diagnostic Accuracy of Long-Term Electrocardiogram Interpretation by General Practitioners.International journal of telemedicine and applications · 2024Article
- Patient-Led Mass Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Older Population Using Handheld Electrocardiographic Devices Integrated With a Clinician-Coordinated Remote Central Monitoring System: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial and Process Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- User Perceptions and Experiences of a Handheld 12-Lead Electrocardiographic Device in a Clinical Setting: Usability Evaluation.JMIR cardio · 2021Article
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
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) and other arrhythmias are prevalent and often encountered by general practitioners (GPs). In response to the growing prevalence and to assist practitioners in the diagnosis and management of AF, the Cardiac Society of Australia & New Zealand and Heart Foundation of Australia published the first Australian AF Guidelines in 2018. We aimed to examine (a) the proportion of GPs who performed any form of AF screening and identify the methods they applied, (b) GPs' awareness of the AF Guidelines and approaches to arrhythmia screening, (c) the roles of conventional 12-lead ECG and mobile health devices, and (d) GPs' confidence in ECG interpretation and need for training.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey titled "GPs Screen their patients for Atrial Fibrillation and othEr aRrhythmia (GPSAFER)" was conducted from October 2018 to March 2019. The participants were recruited via various GP networks across Australia. Ethics approval was granted by The University of Sydney.
resultsA total of 463 surveys were completed. Many GPs (394/463, 85.1%, 95% CI 81.5-88.2%) performed some forms of AF screening and applied at least one AF screening method, most frequently pulse palpation (389/463, 84.0%). Some (299/463, 64.6%) GPs considered assessing their patients for other arrhythmias (237/299, 79.3% for complete heart block and 236/299, 78.9% for long-QT). Most GPs (424/463, 91.6%) were not using mobile ECG devices in their practice but some (147/463, 31.7%) were contemplating it. One third (175/463, 37.8%) of GPs were aware of the Australian AF Guidelines; those aware were more likely to perform AF screening (98.9% vs 76.7%, p < 0.001). Factors significantly and positively associated with AF screening were "awareness of the AF Guidelines" (p < 0.001), "number of years working in general practice" (p < 0.001), and "confidence in ECG interpretation of AF" (p = 0.003). Most GPs reported that they were very or extremely confident in interpreting AF (381/463, 82.3%) and complete heart block (266/463, 57.5%). Many GPs (349/463, 75.4%) would like to receive online ECG interpretation training.
conclusionsAssessment of arrhythmias is common in general practice and GPs are open to further training in ECG interpretation and using mobile ECG devices to aid their clinical practice. Increasing awareness of AF Guidelines and improving confidence in ECG interpretation may increase AF screening.
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.