ArticleCureus2026
Do Sequential Cardiac Monitoring Methods Detect More Cases of Atrial Fibrillation in Post-Stroke Patients Compared to Non-Sequential Methods? A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background and purpose There is currently a lack of formal guidelines on the optimal strategy for detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) post-stroke, with respect to the type and length of cardiac monitoring. The primary objective of this study was to determine if sequential methods of cardiac monitoring detect more cases of AF in post-stroke patients compared to non-sequential methods; the secondary objective was to determine if sequential methods of cardiac monitoring reduce the time taken to reach a diagnosis of AF in post-stroke patients compared to non-sequential methods. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted on data collected from 102 patients seen in the United Kingdom, at a district general hospital, at an outpatient stroke clinic, with a confirmed diagnosis of ischaemic stroke from 2019 to 2021. Data was collected on whether patients had sequential or non-sequential methods of cardiac monitoring and if AF was detected. Sequential cardiac monitoring was defined as one or more methods of cardiac monitoring (e.g., Holter monitoring, implantable loop recorder) with a stepwise progression to a longer form of cardiac monitoring if no AF was detected. Results A total of 41% of participants in the sequential monitoring group (number, n=18/44) had AF detected during the study period, compared to 22% in the non-sequential group (n=13/58) (hazard ratio 2.23, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 4.85; p-value, p=0.04). 20% of the cases of AF in the sequential monitoring group (n=8.8/44) were detected 328 days earlier than 20% of AF cases in the non-sequential group (n=11.8/58) (p=0.047). Conclusion Sequential cardiac monitoring can detect more cases of AF and can reduce the time taken to reach a diagnosis of AF compared to conventional methods. The practicality and potential risks of implementing this method of sequential monitoring for all patients should, however, be considered.
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.