Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
July 10, 2014EP EuropaceOpen Access

Specificity of AF diagnosis in the Swedish Patient Register was 93%, and sensitivity was 80% compared to ECG documentation.

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

What is the sensitivity and specificity of atrial fibrillation diagnosis in the Swedish Patient Register compared to ECG documentation in patients with ischaemic stroke and matched controls?

Population

672 subjects comprising 336 patients with first-ever ischaemic stroke and 336 1:1 age- and gender-matched…

Comparison

Atrial fibrillation diagnosis in the Swedish… vs Electrocardiography documentation of atrial…

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

up to October 2011

Authors

MBMaria BaturovaALArne LindgrenJCJonas Carlson

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

High specificity supports register use for confirmed AF cases; lower sensitivity leaves open underestimation of prevalence in observational stroke research.

Structured PICO

What is the sensitivity and specificity of atrial fibrillation diagnosis in the Swedish Patient Register compared to ECG documentation in patients with ischaemic stroke and matched controls?

P
Population
672 subjects comprising 336 patients with first-ever ischaemic stroke (median age 76, 136 female) and 336 1:1 age- and gender-matched control subjects without stroke.
I
Intervention
Atrial fibrillation diagnosis in the Swedish Patient Register
C
Comparator
Electrocardiography (ECG) documentation of atrial fibrillation
O
Outcome
Validity (sensitivity and specificity) of AF diagnosis in the Swedish Patient Register against ECG documentation

Atrial fibrillation diagnosis in the Swedish Patient Register has high specificity (93%) but modest sensitivity (80%), suggesting that relying solely on register data may underestimate AF prevalence and incidence in epidemiological studies.

Cite This Study

Baturova et al. (2014) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a70c867e5469ee92be17796https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euu165
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share