ArticleBMJ open2022
Validating risk models versus age alone for atrial fibrillation in a young Dutch population cohort: should atrial fibrillation risk prediction be expanded to younger community members?
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarkers for Personalised Primary or Secondary Prevention in Cardiovascular Diseases: A Rapid Scoping Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- The mCJACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Evidence Gaps and Lessons in the Early Detection of Atrial Fibrillation: A Prospective Study in a Primary Care Setting (PREFATE Study).Biomedicines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvancing age is the primary selection criterion for community screening for atrial fibrillation (AF), with selection often restricted to those aged ≥65 years. If multivariable models were shown to have considerable additional value over age alone in predicting AF risk among younger individuals, AF screening could be expanded to patients with lower age, but with high AF risk as per a validated risk model.
methodsWe validated risk models CHARGE-AF (Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology model for AF) and FHS-AF (Framingham Heart Study model for AF), and risk scores CHA
resultsDuring 5-year and 10-year follow-up there were n=98 (2.46/1000 person-years) and n=249 (3.29/1000 person-years) new AF cases, respectively, among 8265 participants with mean age 49±13 years. CHARGE-AF and FHS-AF both showed good discrimination for 5-year and 10-year AF (C-statistic range 0.83-0.86) with accurate calibration for 5-year AF, but overestimation of 10-year AF risk in highest-risk individuals. CHA
conclusionMultivariable models accurately discriminate for 5-year and 10-year AF risk among young European community-dwelling individuals. However, their additional discriminatory value over age alone was limited. Selection strategies for primary AF screening using multivariable models should not be expanded to younger individuals.
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.