ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2023
Variations in documentation of atrial fibrillation predicted by population and service level characteristics in primary health care in England.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Visceral Embolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Incidence, Mortality, and Risk Prediction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying features associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) documentation could inform screening. This study used published data to describe differences in documented and estimated AF prevalence in general practices, and explored predictors of variations in AF prevalence.
methodsCross-sectional study of 7318 general practices in England. Descriptive and inferential statistics were undertaken. Multiple linear regression was used to model the difference between estimated AF and documented AF, adjusted for population, practice and practice performance variables.
resultsDocumented AF prevalence was lower than estimated (- 0.55% 95% confidence intervals, -1.89, 2.99). The proportion of variability accounted for in the final regression model was 0.25. Factors positively associated with AF documentation (increase in difference between estimated and documented), were patients 65-74 years, 75 years +, Black or South Asian ethnicity, diabetes mellitus and practices in East and Midlands of England. Eight variables (female patients, deprivation score, heart failure and peripheral artery disease, total patients per practice, full-time GPs and nurses; and location in South of England) were negatively associated with AF documentation (reduction in difference).
conclusionVariations in AF documentation were predicted by several practice and population characteristics. Screening could target these sources of variation to decrease variation and improve AF documentation.
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.