ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2025
Systematic screening for atrial fibrillation with non-invasive devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07598903 (Pharmacy-based Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Using a Portable ECG Device Integrated With Emergency Medical Services), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Pharmacy-based Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation Using a Portable ECG Device Integrated With Emergency Medical Services: a Prospective Type-1 Hybrid Implementation Study (NUMAPLUS Project)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Australian key stakeholder views regarding implementation of atrial fibrillation screening: a qualitative evaluation.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Screening for undiagnosed atrial fibrillation in community pharmacies using mobile electrocardiogram technology: a quasi-experimental cross-sectional study (PREVENIM ICTUS).BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-derived photoplethysmography age as a digital biomarker for cardiovascular health.Communications medicine · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Systematic screening individuals with non-invasive devices may improve diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) and reduce adverse clinical events. We systematically reviewed the existing literature to determine the yield of new AF diagnosis associated with systematic AF screening, the relative increase in yield of new AF diagnosis with systematic screening compared to usual care, and the effect of systematic AF screening on clinical outcomes compared with usual care. Methods: The Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception through 1st February 2025 for prospective cohort studies or randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of systematic AF screening with the outcome of incidence of previously undiagnosed AF from screening. Incidence rates (IR) and relative risks were calculated and random effects meta-analysis performed to synthesise rates of AF in prospective cohort studies and RCTs, as well as outcomes in RCTs. Findings: From 3806 unique records we included 32 studies representing 735,542 participants from 8 RCTs and 24 prospective cohorts. The diagnosis rate for incident AF in prospective cohorts was 2.75% (95% CI 1.87-3.62), and the pooled relative risk in RCTs was 2.22 (95% CI 1.41-3.50). The use of age and NT-proBNP (IR 4.36%, 95% CI 3.77-5.08) or AF risk score classification (4.79%, 95% CI 3.62-6.29) led to higher new AF diagnosis yields than age alone (0.93%, 95% CI 0.28-2.99). Pooled data from RCTs did not demonstrate an effect of screening on death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.05), cardiovascular hospitalisation (1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03), stroke (0.95, 95% CI 0.87-1.04) or bleeding (1.08, 95% CI 0.91-1.29). Interpretation: Systematic screening for AF using non-invasive devices is associated with increased diagnosis of AF, but not reduced adverse clinical events. Screening studies of AF utilising alternative risk stratifications and outcome measures are required. Funding: British Heart Foundation (grant reference CC/22/250026) and National Institute for Health and Care Research.
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.