Observational studyPloS one2020
Acceleration of opportunistic atrial fibrillation screening for elderly patients in routine primary care.
Observational study in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Barriers to stroke prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: Insights from the global anticoagulation Roundtable.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardio-embolic ischemic stroke caused by atrial fibrillation is more severe compared with other types of stroke, such as lacunar infarction and atherothrombotic infarction in patients without atrial fibrillation. Therefore, it is important to prevent cardio-embolic ischemic stroke by detecting atrial fibrillation early in at-risk patients and administering appropriate anticoagulation therapy. This prospective observational study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of opportunistic atrial fibrillation screening at 12 primary clinics in Japan. The study included a 12-month pre-campaign period and a 12-month campaign period. During the campaign period, an awareness campaign was conducted to encourage physicians to be mindful of screening patients aged ≥65 years for atrial fibrillation by checking their pulses and performing subsequent electrocardiography when an irregular pulse was detected. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation. A sub-analysis focusing on first-time outpatients was performed. There were 9921 and 10,282 patients with no history of atrial fibrillation in the pre-campaign and campaign periods, respectively. In the whole population, the proportion of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation was 0.9% throughout the pre-campaign and campaign periods. In the sub-analysis limited to first-time outpatients, the detection proportion increased from 1.6% to 1.9% during the campaign period. In terms of age stratification, a large increase in detection was observed, especially among patients aged 65-74 years (detection increased from 0.9% to 1.5%) and ≥85 years (detection increased from 2.9% to 3.3%) during the campaign period. Our findings suggest the feasibility of opportunistic atrial fibrillation screening in routine primary care practice in Japan. Of note, our findings suggest that opportunistic atrial fibrillation screening targeting first-time outpatients may be of clinical value.
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.