ArticlePrimary health care research & development2019
Electrocardiographic screening in primary care for cardiovascular disease risk and atrial fibrillation.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of cardiac acoustic biomarkers in monitoring patients with heart failure: A systematic literature review.ESC heart failure · 2025Pooled it
- The role and efficacy of ECG screening in assessing fitness to dive in military divers: implications of sports medicine standards.Diving and hyperbaric medicine · 2025Article
- A review of standardized high-throughput cardiovascular phenotyping with a link to metabolism in mice.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2023Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of the PMcardio smartphone application for artificial intelligence-based interpretation of electrocardiograms in primary care (AMSTELHEART-1).Cardiovascular digital health journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrocardiograms (ECGs) are frequently recorded in primary care for screening purposes. An ECG is essential in diagnosing atrial fibrillation, and ECG abnormalities are associated with cardiovascular events. While recent studies show that ECGs adequately reclassify a proportion of patients based on the clinical risk score calculations, there are no data to support that this also results in improved health outcomes. When applied for screening for atrial fibrillation, more cases are found with routine care, but this would be undone when physicians would perform systematic pulse palpation. In most studies, the harms of routine ECG use (such as unnecessary diagnostic testing, emotional distress, increased health expenses) were poorly documented. As such, the routine performing of ECGs in asymptomatic primary care patients, whether it is for cardiovascular disease risk assessment or atrial fibrillation, cannot be recommended.
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.