Systematic screening vs opportunistic screening: Number of new diagnoses
Systematic screening showed no clear difference in systematic versus Opportunistic Screening Number of new diagnoses compared with opportunistic screening (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Systematic screening vs opportunistic screening Systematic versus Opportunistic Screening Number of new diagnoses · patients with the detection of atrial fibrillation Systematic screening showed no clear difference in systematic versus Opportunistic Screening Number of new diagnoses compared with opportunistic screening (moderate certainty). Systematic screening for the detection of atrial fibrillation (2013) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD009586.PUB2, superseded | OR 0.99 [0.72, 1.36] | 1 study · 9137 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systematic screening for the detection of atrial fibrillation 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.