ArticleBMJ open2024
Randomised, siteless study to compare systematic atrial fibrillation screening using enrichment by a risk prediction model with standard care in a Swedish population aged ≥ 65 years: CONSIDERING-AF study design.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05838781 (DeteCtiON and Stroke PreventIon by MoDEl ScRreenING for Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this 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.
DeteCtiON and Stroke PreventIon by MoDEl ScRreenING for Atrial Fibrillation
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2025Trial
- Identifying a Heterogeneous Effect of Atrial Fibrillation Screening in Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of the VITAL-AF Trial.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2025Trial
- Systematic screening for atrial fibrillation with non-invasive devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia and confers an increased risk of mortality, stroke, heart failure and cognitive decline. There is growing interest in AF screening; however, the most suitable population and device for AF detection remains to be elucidated. Here, we present the design of the CONSIDERING-AF (deteCtiON and Stroke preventIon by moDEl scRreenING for Atrial Fibrillation) study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: CONSIDERING-AF is a randomised, controlled, siteless, non-blinded diagnostic superiority trial with four parallel groups and a primary endpoint of identifying AF during a 6-month study period set in Region Halland, Sweden. In each group, 740 individuals aged≥65 years will be included. The primary objective is to compare the intervention of AF screening enrichment using a risk prediction model (RPM), followed by 14 days of a continuous ECG patch, with no intervention (standard care). Primary outcome is defined as the incident AF recorded in the Region Halland Information Database after 6 months as compared with standard care. Secondary endpoints include the difference in incident AF between groups enriched or not by the RPM, with and without an invitation to 14 days of continuous ECG recording, and the proportions of oral anticoagulation treatment in the four groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethical approval from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. Results will be published in peer-reviewed international journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05838781.
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.