SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in Stroke Prevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence is needed to determine the benefits and harms of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in stroke prevention. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the benefits and issues of AF screening among older adults. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We systematically searched several databases from inception through 28 March 2025, selecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AF screening, including systematic and opportunistic screening, versus routine practice or no screening. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and appraised the risks of bias of the studies. Results: Thirteen articles covering 12 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. For routine screening, systematic screening, rather than opportunistic screening, was more effective in detecting new AF cases (relative risk (RR), 2.07; 95% CI, 1.41 to 3.04; Conclusions: Systematic screening outperformed routine care but was comparable to opportunistic screening in detecting undiagnosed AF. Systematic screening was related to a reduction in the composite endpoints of stroke and all-cause mortality without increasing the risk of bleeding. PROSPERO Registration: This systematic review was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, registration number: CRD42024558614, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024558614.
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.