Trial reportBMJ open2022
Detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care with radial pulse palpation, electronic blood pressure measurement and handheld single-lead electrocardiography: a diagnostic accuracy study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. 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.
- Pre-procedural time spent in atrial fibrillation using intermittent ECG monitoring is associated with arrhythmia recurrence after ablation: the ISOLATION cohort study.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Exploring nurse- and allied health professional-led opportunistic atrial fibrillation screening with artificial intelligence-enabled devices in community and primary care.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- WATCH-PR: Comparison of the Pulse Rate of a WATCH-Type Blood Pressure Monitor with the Pulse Rate of a Conventional Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitor.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Electrocardiogram Devices for Home Use: Technological and Clinical Scoping Review.JMIR cardio · 2023Article
- Smartphone and wearable detected atrial arrhythmias in Older Adults: Results of a fully digital European Case finding study.European heart journal. Digital health · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of three tests-radial pulse palpation, an electronic blood pressure monitor and a handheld single-lead ECG device-for opportunistic screening for unknown atrial fibrillation (AF).
designWe performed a diagnostic accuracy study in the intention-to-screen arm of a cluster randomised controlled trial aimed at opportunistic screening for AF in general practice. We performed radial pulse palpation, followed by electronic blood pressure measurement (WatchBP Home A) and handheld ECG (MyDiagnostick) in random order. If one or more index tests were positive, we performed a 12-lead ECG at shortest notice. Similarly, to limit verification bias, a random sample of patients with three negative index tests received this reference test. Additionally, we analysed the dataset using multiple imputation. We present pooled diagnostic parameters.
setting47 general practices participated between September 2015 and August 2018.
participantsIn the electronic medical record system of the participating general practices (n=47), we randomly marked 200 patients of ≥65 years without AF. When they visited the practice for any reason, we invited them to participate. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, inability to give informed consent or visit the practice or having a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. OUTCOMES: Diagnostic accuracy of individual tests and test combinations to detect unknown AF.
resultsWe included 4339 patients; 0.8% showed new AF. Sensitivity and specificity were 62.8% (range 43.1%-69.7%) and 91.8% (91.7%-91.8%) for radial pulse palpation, 70.0% (49.0%-80.6%) and 96.5% (96.3%-96.7%) for electronic blood pressure measurement and 90.1% (60.8%-100%) and 97.9% (97.8%-97.9%) for handheld ECG, respectively. Positive predictive values were 5.8% (5.3%-6.1%), 13.8% (12.2%-14.8%) and 25.2% (24.2%-25.8%), respectively. All negative predictive values were ≥99.7%.
conclusionIn detecting AF, electronic blood pressure measurement (WatchBP Home A), but especially handheld ECG (MyDiagnostick) showed better diagnostic accuracy than radial pulse palpation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register No. NL4776 (old NTR4914).
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.