房颤筛查:从指南的批判性评价的角度

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Peng Wang, Jing Zhang, Tong Liu, Yangsheng He, Menghui Liu, Xinxue Liao, Xiaodong Zhuang, Li Feng
{"title":"房颤筛查:从指南的批判性评价的角度","authors":"Peng Wang,&nbsp;Jing Zhang,&nbsp;Tong Liu,&nbsp;Yangsheng He,&nbsp;Menghui Liu,&nbsp;Xinxue Liao,&nbsp;Xiaodong Zhuang,&nbsp;Li Feng","doi":"10.1111/jep.70157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Current guidelines involving screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) have some discrepancies in the recommendations for AF screening, which might confuse clinicians. Therefore, it is necessary to appraise the quality of the guidelines and summarize the consensus and discrepancies regarding AF screening.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic search was conducted for guidelines containing recommendations for AF screening between 2012 and 2024. Two reviewers appraised the quality of the included guidelines with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Seven guidelines met the inclusion criteria, with AGREE II scores ranging from 42% to 80%, of which 4 guidelines were defined as ‘strongly recommended’ guidelines. Most current guidelines reach consensus that AF screening should be performed in individuals aged ≥ 65 years and patients with stroke or cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). However, there was no consensus on whether to perform systematic ECG screening in patients ≥ 75 years of age and the optimal method of prolonged ECG monitoring in patients with stroke. Moreover, the recommendation regarding AF screening in other subgroups was limited.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The guidelines from European and American regions had higher AGREE II scores. Most of the current guidelines reached consensus that the elderly population (≥ 65 years) and patients with stroke or CIED need AF screening, but there was no consensus on the methods or intensity of screening for specific subgroups.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: A Perspective From Critical Appraisal of the Guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Peng Wang,&nbsp;Jing Zhang,&nbsp;Tong Liu,&nbsp;Yangsheng He,&nbsp;Menghui Liu,&nbsp;Xinxue Liao,&nbsp;Xiaodong Zhuang,&nbsp;Li Feng\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.70157\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Current guidelines involving screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) have some discrepancies in the recommendations for AF screening, which might confuse clinicians. Therefore, it is necessary to appraise the quality of the guidelines and summarize the consensus and discrepancies regarding AF screening.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A systematic search was conducted for guidelines containing recommendations for AF screening between 2012 and 2024. Two reviewers appraised the quality of the included guidelines with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Seven guidelines met the inclusion criteria, with AGREE II scores ranging from 42% to 80%, of which 4 guidelines were defined as ‘strongly recommended’ guidelines. Most current guidelines reach consensus that AF screening should be performed in individuals aged ≥ 65 years and patients with stroke or cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). However, there was no consensus on whether to perform systematic ECG screening in patients ≥ 75 years of age and the optimal method of prolonged ECG monitoring in patients with stroke. Moreover, the recommendation regarding AF screening in other subgroups was limited.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The guidelines from European and American regions had higher AGREE II scores. Most of the current guidelines reached consensus that the elderly population (≥ 65 years) and patients with stroke or CIED need AF screening, but there was no consensus on the methods or intensity of screening for specific subgroups.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":\"31 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70157\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70157","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前的心房颤动(AF)筛查指南在推荐房颤筛查方面存在一些差异,这可能会使临床医生感到困惑。因此,有必要对指南的质量进行评估,并总结关于房颤筛查的共识和差异。方法系统检索2012 - 2024年房颤筛查推荐指南。两名审稿人使用研究和评价指南评估(AGREE) II工具评估所纳入指南的质量。结果7份指南符合纳入标准,AGREE II评分范围为42% ~ 80%,其中4份指南被定义为“强烈推荐”指南。大多数现行指南一致认为,应在年龄≥65岁的个体和卒中或心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)患者中进行房颤筛查。然而,对于≥75岁的患者是否应该进行系统的心电图筛查以及卒中患者延长心电图监测的最佳方法尚无共识。此外,对其他亚组的房颤筛查的推荐是有限的。结论欧美地区的指南具有较高的AGREE II评分。目前大多数指南一致认为老年人(≥65岁)和卒中或CIED患者需要房颤筛查,但对特定亚组的筛查方法或强度尚无共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: A Perspective From Critical Appraisal of the Guidelines

Introduction

Current guidelines involving screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) have some discrepancies in the recommendations for AF screening, which might confuse clinicians. Therefore, it is necessary to appraise the quality of the guidelines and summarize the consensus and discrepancies regarding AF screening.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted for guidelines containing recommendations for AF screening between 2012 and 2024. Two reviewers appraised the quality of the included guidelines with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.

Results

Seven guidelines met the inclusion criteria, with AGREE II scores ranging from 42% to 80%, of which 4 guidelines were defined as ‘strongly recommended’ guidelines. Most current guidelines reach consensus that AF screening should be performed in individuals aged ≥ 65 years and patients with stroke or cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). However, there was no consensus on whether to perform systematic ECG screening in patients ≥ 75 years of age and the optimal method of prolonged ECG monitoring in patients with stroke. Moreover, the recommendation regarding AF screening in other subgroups was limited.

Conclusion

The guidelines from European and American regions had higher AGREE II scores. Most of the current guidelines reached consensus that the elderly population (≥ 65 years) and patients with stroke or CIED need AF screening, but there was no consensus on the methods or intensity of screening for specific subgroups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信