ArticleJournal of hospital medicine2024
Predicting stroke risk after sepsis hospitalization with new-onset atrial fibrillation.
Article in Journal of hospital medicine, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes in Stressor-Associated Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From the VITAL-AF Trial.Circulation · 2026Trial
- The cumulative incidence of atrial fibrillation in the hospitalized medical patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal open · 2026Review
- Anticoagulation and thromboembolic risk in critically ill patients with trigger-induced atrial fibrillation-A systematic review and meta-analysis.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Review
- Sepsis-induced Atrial Fibrillation: Can We Predict and Prevent This High-Risk Complication?Cureus · 2025Review
- Atrial fibrillation in critical illness: state of the art.Intensive care medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNew-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) during sepsis is common, but models designed to stratify stroke risk excluded patients with secondary AF. We assessed the predictive validity of CHA
methodsWe included patients ≥40 years old who survived hospitalizations with sepsis and new-onset AF across 21 Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitals from January 1, 2011 to September 30, 2017. We calculated the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) for CHA
resultsAmong 82,748 adults hospitalized with sepsis, 3992 with new-onset AF (median age: 80 years, median CHA
conclusionCurrent models do not accurately stratify risk of stroke following new-onset AF secondary to sepsis. New tools are required to guide anticoagulation decisions following new-onset AF in sepsis.
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.