ArticlePLoS medicine2020
Opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation by clinical pharmacists in UK general practice during the influenza vaccination season: A cross-sectional feasibility study.
Article in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Screening for undiagnosed atrial fibrillation in community pharmacies using mobile electrocardiogram technology: a quasi-experimental cross-sectional study (PREVENIM ICTUS).BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation Screening in Dialytic Chronic Kidney Disease Patients Using Portable Device.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
- Service delivery and the role of clinical pharmacists in UK primary care for older people, including people with dementia: a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Global implementation and evaluation of atrial fibrillation screening in the past two decades - a narrative review.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2024Review
- Article
- Screening for atrial fibrillation in care homes using pulse palpation and the AliveCor Kardia Mobile® device: a comparative cross-sectional pilot study.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2024Article
- Pharmacy-Led Management of Atrial Fibrillation: Improving Treatment Adherence and Patient Outcomes.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2024Review
- How to use digital devices to detect and manage arrhythmias: an EHRA practical guide.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 · 2022Article
- Pharmacy-Based Opportunistic Atrial Fibrillation Screening at a Community Level: A Real-Life Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Influenza vaccination and risk of atrial fibrillation in patients with gout: A nationwide population-based cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGrowing prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the ageing population and its associated life-changing health and resource implications have led to a need to improve its early detection. Primary care is an ideal place to screen for AF; however, this is limited by shortages in general practitioner (GP) resources. Recent increases in the number of clinical pharmacists within primary care makes them ideally placed to conduct AF screening. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of GP practice-based clinical pharmacists to screen the over-65s for AF, using digital technology and pulse palpation during the influenza vaccination season. METHODS AND
findingsScreening was conducted over two influenza vaccination seasons, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, in four GP practices in Kent, United Kingdom. Pharmacists were trained by a cardiologist to pulse palpate, record, and interpret a single-lead ECG (SLECG). Eligible persons aged ≥65 years (y) attending an influenza vaccination clinic were offered a free heart rhythm check. Six hundred four participants were screened (median age 73 y, 42.7% male). Total prevalence of AF was 4.3%. All participants with AF qualified for anticoagulation and were more likely to be male (57.7%); be older; have an increased body mass index (BMI); and have a CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥ 75 years, Diabetes, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex category) score ≥ 3. The sensitivity and specificity of clinical pharmacists diagnosing AF using pulse palpation was 76.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 56.4-91.0) and 92.2% (95% CI 89.7-94.3), respectively. This rose to 88.5% (95% CI 69.9-97.6) and 97.2% (95% CI 95.5-98.4) with an SLECG. At follow-up, four participants (0.7%) were diagnosed with new AF and three (0.5%) were initiated on anticoagulation. Screening with SLECG also helped identify new non-AF cardiovascular diagnoses, such as left ventricular hypertrophy, in 28 participants (4.6%). The screening strategy was cost-effective in 71.8% and 64.3% of the estimates for SLECG or pulse palpation, respectively. Feedback from participants (422/604) was generally positive. Key limitations of the study were that the intervention did not reach individuals who did not attend the practice for an influenza vaccination and there was a limited representation of UK ethnic minority groups in the study cohort.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that AF screening performed by GP practice-based pharmacists was feasible, economically viable, and positively endorsed by participants. Furthermore, diagnosis of AF by the clinical pharmacist using an SLECG was more sensitive and more specific than the use of pulse palpation alone. Future research should explore the key barriers preventing the adoption of national screening programmes.
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.