Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35802569›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Performance of an electronic health record-based predictive model to identify patients with atrial fibrillation across countries.

Ruth Mokgokong, Renate Schnabel, Henning Witt, Robert Miller, Theodore C Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Systematic, randomized atrial fibrillation screening using detailed phenotyping with a risk prediction model combined with patch electrocardiogram in a Swedish population aged 65 years or older: the CONSIDERING-AF trial.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 · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ruth MokgokongHealth Economics & Outcomes Research, Internal Medicine, Pfizer, Surrey, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6278-4969
Renate SchnabelUniversity Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Henning WittPfizer Germany, Berlin, Germany.
Robert MillerPfizer Germany, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8665-5248
Theodore C LeeInternal Medicine, Pfizer, New York City, New York, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) burden on patients and healthcare systems warrants innovative strategies for screening asymptomatic individuals.

objectiveWe sought to externally validate a predictive model originally developed in a German population to detect unidentified incident AF utilising real-world primary healthcare databases from countries in Europe and Australia.

methodsThis retrospective cohort study used anonymized, longitudinal patient data from 5 country-level primary care databases, including Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, and the UK. The study eligibility included adult patients (≥45 years) with either an AF diagnosis (cases) or no diagnosis (controls) who had continuous enrolment in the respective database prior to the study period. Logistic regression was fitted to a binary response (yes/no) for AF diagnosis using pre-determined risk factors.

resultsAF patients were from Germany (n = 63,562), the UK (n = 42,652), France (n = 7,213), Australia (n = 2,753), and Belgium (n = 1,371). Cases were more likely to have hypertension or other cardiac conditions than controls in all validation datasets compared to the model development data. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve in the validation datasets ranged from 0.79 (Belgium) to 0.84 (Germany), comparable to the German study model, which had an area under the curve of 0.83. Most validation sets reported similar specificity at approximately 80% sensitivity, ranging from 67% (France) to 71% (United Kingdom). The positive predictive value (PPV) ranged from 2% (Belgium) to 16% (Germany), and the number needed to be screened was 50 in Belgium and 6 in Germany. The prevalence of AF varied widely between these datasets, which may be related to different coding practices. Low prevalence affected PPV, but not sensitivity, specificity, and ROC curves.

conclusionsAF risk prediction algorithms offer targeted ways to identify patients using electronic health records, which could improve screening number and the cost-effectiveness of AF screening if implemented in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationAdultElectronic Health RecordsHumansPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID35802569
PMCPMC9269467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.