ReviewGlobal heart2026
Atrial Fibrillation Screening in Those with Rheumatic Heart Disease: A Narrative Policy Content Review.
Review in Global heart, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are major global health burdens. AF affects up to one-third of individuals with RHD, yet clinical guidelines lack recommendations for AF screening in this population. Aim: To identify and review current guidelines/policies for AF and RHD to assess whether recommendations are made for AF screening in patients with RHD, thereby identifying any policy gaps. Methods: A narrative policy content review was conducted. This included: guidelines, consensus statements, position statements and policy documents regarding AF or RHD. Documents were identified through searches in MEDLINE, national/international cardiovascular society websites and citation tracking. A narrative synthesis approach was used to review content. Results: A total of 29 documents were identified (16 focussed on AF; 13 on RHD). Of the 16 AF-focussed documents, 13 recommended AF screening in the general population in high-risk groups, based on age and comorbidities. Only one, the 2021 Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS) AF practice guidance, explicitly recommended AF screening in higher-risk patients with RHD. The 13 RHD-focussed documents acknowledged AF as a frequent complication, particularly in advanced valvular disease, but none specifically recommended screening. Conclusion: This review highlights a clear gap in current guidelines and policies for AF screening in those with RHD. Although AF is a common complication of RHD, only one policy document was identified that provided specific recommendations for AF screening in patients with RHD. Further work is needed to inform and develop appropriate AF screening guidelines tailored to RHD populations in different settings.
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.