Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36003419›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2022

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Using Wearable Devices.

Wanyi Chen, Shaan Khurshid, Daniel E Singer, Steven J Atlas, Jeffrey M Ashburner, Patrick T Ellinor, David D McManus, Steven A Lubitz, Jagpreet Chhatwal

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Improving atrial fibrillation or flutter detection and management by smartphone-based photoplethysmography rhythm monitoring following cardiac surgery: a pragmatic randomized 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
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cost-effectiveness of atrial fibrillation screening programmes across European nations.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Consumer-grade wearable devices in arrhythmia diagnostics for clinicians: where we are and where we are going.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Wanyi ChenInstitute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Shaan KhurshidCardiovascular Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Daniel E SingerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Steven J AtlasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Jeffrey M AshburnerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Patrick T EllinorCardiovascular Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
David D McManusDepartment of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester.
Steven A LubitzCardiovascular Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Jagpreet ChhatwalInstitute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USHarvard University · USCenter for Assessment · USUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · US

Funding

Identifying primary care patients at increased risk of atrial fibrillation for screening interventionsK01HL148506 · NHLBI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI ASHBURNER, JEFFREY M · 2019 to 2023
$887k
NHLBI NIH HHS K01 HL148506
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important cause of stroke. Screening for AF using wrist-worn wearable devices may prevent strokes, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of contemporary AF screening strategies, particularly wrist-worn wearable devices. Design Setting and Participants: This economic evaluation used a microsimulation decision-analytic model and was conducted from September 8, 2020, to May 23, 2022, comprising 30 million simulated individuals with an age, sex, and comorbidity profile matching the US population aged 65 years or older. Interventions: Eight AF screening strategies, with 6 using wrist-worn wearable devices (watch or band photoplethysmography, with or without watch or band electrocardiography) and 2 using traditional modalities (ie, pulse palpation and 12-lead electrocardiogram) vs no screening. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, defined as US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Secondary measures included rates of stroke and major bleeding. Results: In the base case analysis of this model, the mean (SD) age was 72.5 (7.5) years, and 50% of the individuals were women. All 6 screening strategies using wrist-worn wearable devices were estimated to be more effective than no screening (range of QALYs gained vs no screening, 226-957 per 100 000 individuals) and were associated with greater relative benefit than screening using traditional modalities (range of QALYs gained vs no screening, -116 to 93 per 100 000 individuals). Compared with no screening, screening using wrist-worn wearable devices was associated with a reduction in stroke incidence by 20 to 23 per 100 000 person-years but an increase in major bleeding by 20 to 44 per 100 000 person-years. The overall preferred strategy was wearable photoplethysmography, followed conditionally by wearable electrocardiography with patch monitor confirmation, which had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $57 894 per QALY, meeting the acceptability threshold of $100 000 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness of screening was consistent across multiple scenarios, including strata of sex, screening at earlier ages (eg, ≥50 years), and with variation in the association of anticoagulation with risk of stroke in the setting of screening-detected AF. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation of AF screening using a microsimulation decision-analytic model suggests that screening using wearable devices is cost-effective compared with either no screening or AF screening using traditional methods.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationStrokeWearable Electronic DevicesAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHemorrhageHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID36003419
PMCPMC9356321
OpenAlexW4289933454

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.