ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Consistency between recurrent risk perception and objective recurrence risk in patients after atrial fibrillation ablation: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the consistency between the patients' recurrent risk perception and APPLE-estimated recurrence risk after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and to investigate the factors possibly contributing to the inconsistency between them.
methodsThis study included 210 hospitalized patients who underwent AF ablation in the cardiology departments of two tertiary care hospitals in Qingdao. We utilized a single question to measure AF recurrence risk perception of the participants; and the APPLE score served as a robust metric for assessing their APPLE-estimated recurrence risk. The accuracy of AF recurrence risk perception was calculated via comparing recurrence risk perception against APPLE-estimated recurrence risk and was then classified into three categories: "underestimated", "accurate," and "overestimated". Additionally, logistic regression analysis was employed to examine the factors that may contribute to patients' inaccurate perception of their recurrence risk.
resultsOur consistency analysis showed that 38.31% of patients underestimated their AF recurrence risk, while 28.72% overestimated it. Multinomial logistic regression analyses demonstrated that individuals with lower social support (OR = 0.519; 95% CI: 0.393-0.686; p < 0.001) and an indifferent attitude towards AF recurrence (OR = 0.028; 95%CI: 0.005-0.152; p < 0.001) were more likely to underestimate their risk. In contrast, those with increased levels of anxiety (OR = 2.065; 95%CI: 1.423-2.996; p < 0.001), diminished ability to perform activities of daily living(OR = 12.614; 95%CI: 3.146-50.574; p < 0.001), and worry about recurrent AF(OR = 7.978; 95%CI: 1.306-48.742; p = 0.025)demonstrated a greater tendency to overestimate their risk.
conclusionsThis study showed that many participants after AF ablation had inaccurate perceptions of their AF recurrence risk. Among them, those who underestimated the risk accounted for a large proportion, factors associated with low social support and an indifferent attitude towards AF recurrence.
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.