Trial reportEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025
Systematic, randomized atrial fibrillation screening using detailed phenotyping with a risk prediction model combined with patch electrocardiogram in a Swedish population aged 65 years or older: the CONSIDERING-AF trial.
Trial report in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital recruitment and prevalence of screen-detected atrial fibrillation in nationwide patch-based ECG screening: the NORSCREEN randomized clinical trial.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Trial
- Population reach and participation rate in opportunistic vs. systematic atrial fibrillation screening: STROKESTOP III.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Trial
- Precision cardiovascular medicine with big data and AI.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsAtrial fibrillation (AF), often asymptomatic and underdiagnosed, is an independent risk factor for ischaemic stroke. A knowledge gap remains regarding the optimal target population and method to use for AF screening. We aimed to test whether screening for AF using a machine learning-based risk prediction model (RPM) and 14-day continuous patch electrocardiogram (ECG) (Philips ePatch) in high-risk individuals ≥ 65 years is more effective than standard care. METHODS AND
resultsIndividuals ≥ 65 years were assigned to general or RPM cohort. The general cohort was randomized to control or invitation. In the RPM cohort, high-risk individuals, identified by RPM, were randomized to control or invitation. The primary outcome was 6-month AF incidence, analysed as intention-to-invite, comparing RPM + invitation with general + control. Of the 2960 randomized individuals, participation was 43% (632/1480) in invitation arms. Atrial fibrillation incidence was higher in RPM + invitation than in general + control arm (3.8%, 28/740 vs. 0.7%, 5/740; P < 0.001), yielding a risk ratio of 5.6, [95% confidence interval (2.2, 14.4)], and a number needed to invite of 32. Atrial fibrillation was more often detected in RPM + invitation than in general + invitation arm (1.1%, 8/740; P < 0.001), but not more often than in RPM + control arm (2.2%, 16/740; P = 0.07). No difference was found between general + invitation and general + control arms (1.1%, 8/740 vs. 0.7%, 5/740; P = 0.40).
conclusionAmong high-risk individuals ≥ 65 years, the combination of a machine learning-based RPM and long-term ECG recording was superior to standard care in identifying new AF cases.
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.