↓ Skip to main content

Systematic screening for the detection of atrial fibrillation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
1 policy source
17 tweeters
1 Facebook page
1 Wikipedia page


39 Dimensions

Readers on

251 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Systematic screening for the detection of atrial fibrillation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009586.pub3
Pubmed ID

Patrick S Moran, Conor Teljeur, Mairin Ryan, Susan M Smith


Atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Screening for AF in asymptomatic patients has been proposed as a way of reducing the burden of the disease by detecting people who would benefit from prophylactic anticoagulation therapy before the onset of symptoms. However, for screening to be an effective intervention, it must improve the detection of AF and provide benefit for those detected earlier as a result of screening. This review aims to answer the following questions.Does systematic screening increase the detection of AF compared with routine practice? Which combination of screening population, strategy and test is most effective for detecting AF compared with routine practice? What safety issues and adverse events may be associated with individual screening programmes? How acceptable is the intervention to the target population? What costs are associated with systematic screening for AF? We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE (Ovid) up to 11 November 2015. We searched other relevant research databases, trials registries and websites up to December 2015. We also searched reference lists of identified studies for potentially relevant studies, and we contacted corresponding authors for information about additional published or unpublished studies that may be relevant. We applied no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials comparing screening for AF with routine practice in people 40 years of age and older were eligible. Two review authors (PM and CT) independently selected trials for inclusion. Two review authors (PM and CT) independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to present results for the primary outcome, which is a dichotomous variable. As we identified only one study for inclusion, we performed no meta-analysis. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) method to assess the quality of the evidence and GRADEPro to create a 'Summary of findings' table. One cluster-randomised controlled trial met the inclusion criteria for this review. This study compared systematic screening (by invitation to have an electrocardiogram (ECG)) and opportunistic screening (pulse palpation during a general practitioner (GP) consultation for any reason, followed by an ECG if pulse was irregular) versus routine practice (normal case finding on the basis of clinical presentation) in people 65 years of age or older.Results show that both systematic screening and opportunistic screening of people over 65 years of age are more effective than routine practice (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.26; and OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.29, respectively; both moderate-quality evidence). We found no difference in the effectiveness of systematic screening and opportunistic screening (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.37; low-quality evidence). A subgroup analysis found that systematic screening and opportunistic screening were more effective in men (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.76; and OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.19, respectively) than in women (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.62; and OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.93, respectively). No adverse events associated with screening were reported.The incremental cost per additional case detected by opportunistic screening was GBP 337, compared with GBP 1514 for systematic screening. All cost estimates were based on data from the single included trial, which was conducted in the UK between 2001 and 2003. Evidence suggests that systematic screening and opportunistic screening for AF increase the rate of detection of new cases compared with routine practice. Although these approaches have comparable effects on the overall AF diagnosis rate, the cost of systematic screening is significantly greater than the cost of opportunistic screening from the perspective of the health service provider. Few studies have investigated effects of screening in other health systems and in younger age groups; therefore, caution needs to be exercised in relation to transferability of these results beyond the setting and population in which the included study was conducted.Additional research is needed to examine the effectiveness of alternative screening strategies and to investigate the effects of the intervention on risk of stroke for screened versus non-screened populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 251 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 250 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 18%
Student > Bachelor 33 13%
Researcher 29 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 10%
Other 17 7%
Other 53 21%
Unknown 49 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 15%
Psychology 13 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 58 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2020.
All research outputs
of 16,396,132 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 268,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,396,132 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.