Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33624100›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of preventive cardiology2021

Utility of risk prediction models to detect atrial fibrillation in screened participants.

Michiel H F Poorthuis, Nicholas R Jones, Paul Sherliker, Rachel Clack, Gert J de Borst, Robert Clarke, Sarah Lewington, Alison Halliday, Richard Bulbulia

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of preventive cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Michiel H F PoorthuisClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5198-2823
Nicholas R JonesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Rd, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0352-3785
Paul SherlikerClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Rachel ClackClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Gert J de BorstDepartment of Vascular Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Robert ClarkeClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Sarah LewingtonClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.
Alison HallidayNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.
Richard BulbuliaClinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK.

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_U137686857Medical Research Council MC_UU_12026/3Wellcome Trust 203921/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsAtrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with higher risk of stroke. While the prevalence of AF is low in the general population, risk prediction models might identify individuals for selective screening of AF. We aimed to systematically identify and compare the utility of established models to predict prevalent AF. METHODS AND

resultsSystematic search of PubMed and EMBASE for risk prediction models for AF. We adapted established risk prediction models and assessed their predictive performance using data from 2.5M individuals who attended vascular screening clinics in the USA and the UK and in the subset of 1.2M individuals with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2. We assessed discrimination using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves and agreement between observed and predicted cases using calibration plots. After screening 6959 studies, 14 risk prediction models were identified. In our cohort, 10 464 (0.41%) participants had AF. For discrimination, six prediction model had AUROC curves of 0.70 or above in all individuals and those with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2. In these models, calibration plots showed very good concordance between predicted and observed risks of AF. The two models with the highest observed prevalence in the highest decile of predicted risk, CHARGE-AF and MHS, showed an observed prevalence of AF of 1.6% with a number needed to screen of 63. Selective screening of the 10% highest risk identified 39% of cases with AF.

conclusionPrediction models can reliably identify individuals at high risk of AF. The best performing models showed an almost fourfold higher prevalence of AF by selective screening of individuals in the highest decile of risk compared with systematic screening of all cases. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered (PROSPERO CRD42019123847).

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationStrokeCohort StudiesHumansPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC CurveAtrial fibrillationExternal validationRisk prediction modelsSelective screeningStroke

Identifiers

PMID33624100
PMCPMC8651014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.