ReviewInternational journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society2026
Atrial fibrillation detected after stroke: Recent advances and future directions.
Review in International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prolonged cardiac monitoring has made atrial fibrillation (AF) an increasingly common diagnosis after ischemic stroke. Applied to all patients with ischemic stroke, prolonged cardiac monitoring would result in over a million new AF diagnoses per year worldwide. Almost 10 years after the conceptual inception of AF detected after stroke (AFDAS), several patterns are now consistent across studies. AFDAS is a distinct, mechanistically heterogeneous entity that differs from AF known before stroke in its risk-factor profile, cardiac comorbidity, and its lower rate of ischemic stroke recurrence. Its detection is determined primarily by the monitoring method and increases with earlier and longer-duration monitoring. AF identified on a standard electrocardiogram behaves as a high-burden arrhythmia, resembling AF known before stroke, and should be distinguished from the low-burden AF detected by prolonged monitoring. Important questions remain unresolved. It is unproven that detecting more AF, or detecting it earlier, reduces recurrent ischemic stroke. The low-burden arrhythmia that monitoring increasingly identifies appears to carry a lower embolic risk than the high-burden AF for which anticoagulation was established. Whether patients with low-burden, monitor-detected AFDAS derive net benefit from anticoagulation, the contribution of neurogenic mechanisms, and the thresholds of AF burden that should guide treatment are undefined. Future trials should be powered for recurrent stroke as the primary endpoint.
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.