ArticleJournal of atrial fibrillation
Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in Community and Primary CareSettings: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of atrial fibrillation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening for undiagnosed atrial fibrillation in community pharmacies using mobile electrocardiogram technology: a quasi-experimental cross-sectional study (PREVENIM ICTUS).BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Atrial Fibrillation in Semiurban Nepal: Result From a Community-Based Cross-Sectional Screening.Cardiology research and practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial Fibrillation (AF) is the most common tachyarrhythmia and is associated with increased risk of stroke, morbidity and mortality. AF is responsible for up to a quarter of all strokes and is often asymptomatic until a stroke occurs.Screening for AF is a valuable approach to reduce the burden of stroke in the population.
objectivesThe motivation for this review was to synthesise and appraise the evidence for screening for AF in the community. The aims of this scoping review are 1). To describe the prevalence of newly diagnosed AF in screening programmes 2). Identify which techniques/ tools are employed for AF screening 3). To describe the setting and personnel involved in screening for AF. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All forms of AF screening in adults (≥18 years) in primary and community care settings.
methodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
resultsFifty-nine papers were included; most were cross-sectional studies (n=41) and RCTs (n=7). Prevalence of AF ranged from 0-34.5%. Screening tools and techniquesincluded the 12-lead ECG (n=33), the 1-lead ECG smartphone based Alivecor® (n=14) and pulse palpation (n=12). Studies were undertaken in community settings (n=30) or in urban/rural primary care (n=28). Personnel collecting research data were in the main members of the research team (n=31), GPs (n=16), practice nurses (n=10), participants (n=8) and pharmacists (n=4).
conclusionPrevalence of AF increased with advancing age. AF screening should target individuals at greatest risk of the condition including older adults≥65 years of age. Emerging novel technologies may increase the accessibility of AF screening in community and home settings. There is a need for high quality research to investigate AF prevalence and establish accuracy and validity for traditional versus novel screening tools used to screen for AF.
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.