ArticlePloS one2024
Assessing ascertainment bias in atrial fibrillation across US minority groups.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Predictors of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in End-Stage Renal Disease Patients: A Multi-Center Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to define atrial fibrillation (AF) prevalence and incidence rates across minority groups in the United States (US), to aid in diversity enrollment target setting for randomized controlled trials. In AF, US minority groups have lower clinically detected prevalence compared to the non-Hispanic or Latino White (NHW) population. We assess the impact of ascertainment bias on AF prevalence estimates. We analyzed data from adults in Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database from 2017-2020 in a cohort study. Presence of AF at baseline was identified from inpatient and/or outpatient encounters claims using validated ICD-10-CM diagnosis algorithms. AF incidence and prevalence rates were determined both in the overall population, as well as in a population with a recent stroke event, where monitoring for AF is assumed. Differences in prevalence across cohorts were assessed to determine if ascertainment bias contributes to the variation in AF prevalence across US minority groups. The period prevalence was respectively 4.9%, 3.2%, 2.1% and 5.9% in the Black or African American, Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and NHW population. In patients with recent ischemic stroke, the proportion with AF was 32.2%, 24.3%, 25%, and 24.5%, respectively. The prevalence of AF among the stroke population was approximately 7 to 10 times higher than the prevalence among the overall population for the Asian and Hispanic or Latino population, compared to approximately 5 times higher for NHW patients. The relative AF prevalence difference of the Asian and Hispanic or Latino population with the NHW population narrowed from respectively, -46% and -65%, to -22% and -24%. The study findings align with previous observational studies, revealing lower incidence and prevalence rates of AF in US minority groups. Prevalence estimates of the adult population, when routine clinical practice is assumed, exhibit higher prevalence differences compared to settings in which monitoring for AF is assumed, particularly among Asian and Hispanic or Latino subgroups.
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.