Trial reportCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2025
Identifying a Heterogeneous Effect of Atrial Fibrillation Screening in Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of the VITAL-AF Trial.
Trial report in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2025. 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.
- Different by Design: Heterogeneity in Models of Risk Prediction and Clinical Decision Support in Screening for Atrial Fibrillation.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOne-time atrial fibrillation (AF) screening trials in older adults have produced mixed results. In a secondary analysis of the VITAL-AF trial, we aimed to identify a subset of people in whom such screening is effective, using effect-based and risk-based approaches.
methodsThe VITAL-AF trial was a cluster-randomized trial of 1-time, 30-second single-lead ECG screening during primary care visits. It enrolled adults aged ≥65 years in 16 Massachusetts General Hospital primary care practices (2018-2019). In this secondary analysis, we tested 2 approaches to identify subgroups where screening is effective. First, we developed an effect-based model using T-learner, a causal inference approach that estimates screening effects by separately training 2 predictive models-one for screening and one for usual care-and then compares their predictions for each individual. Second, we used a validated AF risk model (Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology AF) to test for heterogeneous screening effectiveness. We assessed AF screening effectiveness by quartile of predicted effect and predicted AF risk and determined their correlation.
resultsThe study included 29 656 participants (mean±SD age 74±7 years, 59% women). In the highest quartile of predicted screening effect, AF diagnosis rates were higher in the screening versus the usual care group (4.00 versus 2.88 per 100 person-years, rate difference 1.12 [95% CI, 0.11-2.13] per 100 person-years). In the highest quartile of predicted AF risk, AF diagnosis rates were also higher in the screening versus the usual care group (5.55 versus 4.23 per 100 person-years, rate difference 1.32 [95% CI, 0.14-2.50] per 100 person-years). Predicted screening effect and predicted AF risk were weakly correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.23).
conclusionsOne-time screening was associated with increased AF diagnoses in the top quartile of both predicted screening effect and predicted AF risk. Because predicted effect and risk were only weakly correlated, future AF screening efforts should include both high-effect and high-risk individuals.
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.