Discussion The results of this systematic review have the potential to benefit thous and s of patients worldwide as well as healthcare systems and healthcare economy .
Background Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia of the heart with a prevalence of approximately 2 % in the western world .
Atrial flutter , another arrhythmia , occurs less often with an incidence of approximately 200,000 new patients per year in the USA .
Patients with atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter have an increased risk of death and morbidities .
The management of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter is often based on interventions aim ing at either a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy .
The evidence on the comparable effects of these strategies is unclear .
This protocol for a systematic review aims at identifying the best overall treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter .
Screening versus routine practice in detection of atrial fibrillation in patients aged 65 or over: cluster randomised controlled trial
Objectives To assess whether screening improves the detection of atrial fibrillation  ( cluster r and omisation ) and to compare systematic and opportunistic screening . Design Multicentred cluster r and omised controlled trial , with subsidiary trial embedded within the intervention arm . Setting 50 primary care centres in Engl and , with further individual r and omisation of patients in the intervention practice s. Participants 14 802 patients aged 65 or over in 25 intervention and 25 control practice s. Interventions Patients in intervention practice s were r and omly allocated to systematic screening ( invitation for electrocardiography ) or opportunistic screening ( pulse taking and invitation for electrocardiography if the pulse was irregular ) . Screening took place over 12 months in each practice from October 2001 to February 2003 . No active screening took place in control practice s. Main outcome measure Newly identified atrial fibrillation . Results The detection rate of new cases of atrial fibrillation was 1.63 % a year in the intervention practice s and 1.04 % in control practice s ( difference 0.59 % , 95 % confidence interval 0.20 % to 0.98 % ) . Systematic and opportunistic screening detected similar numbers of new cases ( 1.62 % v 1.64 % , difference 0.02 % , −0.5 % to 0.5 % ) . Conclusion Active screening for atrial fibrillation detects additional cases over current practice . The preferred method of screening in patients aged 65 or over in primary care is opportunistic pulse taking with follow-up electrocardiography . Trial registration Current Controlled Trials IS RCT N19633732
Discussion The results of this systematic review have the potential to benefit thous and s of patients worldwide as well as healthcare systems and healthcare economy .
Background Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia of the heart with a prevalence of approximately 2 % in the western world .
Atrial flutter , another arrhythmia , occurs less often with an incidence of approximately 200,000 new patients per year in the USA .
Patients with atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter have an increased risk of death and morbidities .
The management of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter is often based on interventions aim ing at either a rhythm control strategy or a rate control strategy .
The evidence on the comparable effects of these strategies is unclear .
This protocol for a systematic review aims at identifying the best overall treatment strategy for atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter .