ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2026
Overdiagnosis in atrial fibrillation screening with wearables.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWearable technologies are increasingly used to screen for atrial fibrillation (AF), often outside formal clinical pathways. While this holds promise for early detection, the impact on patient outcomes remains unclear. We aimed to examine the hypothesis whether intermittent and continuous AF screening using wearable-like technologies leads to overdiagnosis in asymptomatic, high-risk individuals.
methodsThis hypothesis-generating analysis draws on available RCTs screening asymptomatic, high-risk individuals for AF using wearable-like ECG technologies. It is not a systematic review, as the field remains too early-stage for formal evidence synthesis. Eligible studies included either intermittent (≥10 recordings) or continuous monitoring for ≥1 week, reflecting typical smartwatch use. Primary outcomes included AF diagnoses, anticoagulant use, and adverse events. Overdiagnosis was inferred when excess AF detection did not translate into improved clinical outcomes. Analyses used Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models.
resultsContinuous screening nearly tripled AF diagnoses (OR 2.84; 95% CI, 1.61-5.02) and doubled anticoagulant use compared to controls. Intermittent screening showed a non-significant 1.8-fold increase. Neither method significantly reduced adverse outcomes. A pooled analysis revealed a marginal reduction in negative events (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.99). Overdiagnosis estimates varied by method, ranging from 8-29% based on persistent differences in cumulative incidence after the screening period has ended and 47-65% based on increased diagnoses and treatment during the screening phase that are not followed by improved patient-relevant outcomes.
conclusionWearable-enabled screening for AF in high-risk patients increases diagnosis and treatment without clear benefit in clinical outcomes. These findings support the hypothesis of overdiagnosis and findings highlight the need for cautious integration of consumer technologies into primary care. Further trials with extended follow-up in low-risk populations are needed to clarify when AF detection improves outcomes versus when it leads to unnecessary medicalisation and harm.
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.