ArticleClinical cardiology2021
Performance of pulse palpation compared to one-lead ECG in atrial fibrillation screening.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent-onset atrial fibrillation: challenges and opportunities.European heart journal · 2026Review
- Sex-specific longitudinal changes in resting heart rate and all-cause heart failure: insights from the HUNT study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Global implementation and evaluation of atrial fibrillation screening in the past two decades - a narrative review.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2024Review
- Validity of MENARI plus (self-pulse assessment and clinical scoring) mobile apps for detecting atrial fibrillation in high-risk population.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
- Performance of pulse palpation compared to one-lead ECG in atrial fibrillation screening.Clinical cardiology · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 2020 European Society of Cardiology atrial fibrillation guidelines recommend opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation by pulse taking or ECG rhythm strip in those aged over 65 years. HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of pulse palpation to ECG rhythm strip when screening for atrial fibrillation. A secondary aim was to investigate whether participants with palpitations were more likely to be diagnosed with new atrial fibrillation.
methodsThe study population were 75/76 year old individuals that participated in the STROKESTOP II study, a Swedish screening study for atrial fibrillation. Pulse palpation of the radial pulse for 30 sec was performed by healthcare professionals and recorded as regular or irregular. Thereafter a 30-sec single-lead ECG was registered. Patients were asked also if they had a history of palpitations.
resultsOf the 6159 participants included in the study, 461 (7.5%) had irregular pulse. Twenty-two (4.8%) of those with irregular pulse were diagnosed with atrial fibrillation on single-lead ECG rhythm strip. Among those with regular pulse, 6 (0.1%) cases of new atrial fibrillation were found. The sensitivity of the pulse palpation test was 78.6% and positive predictive value 4.8%. The proportion of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation was not different between those with and without history of palpitations.
conclusionPulse palpation was inferior to single-lead ECG when screening for atrial fibrillation. We therefore advocate the use of single-lead ECG rather than pulse palpation when screening for atrial fibrillation. Palpitations did not predict atrial fibrillation.
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.