Wearable-style heart rhythm screening found more atrial fibrillation, with uncertain clinical benefit
An exploratory analysis of screening trials in people without symptoms found more diagnoses and anticoagulant use, while patient-outcome findings were mixed.
Based on the published abstract. The full paper may contain additional methods, results and limitations.
The 30-second takeaway
Continuous screening identified more atrial fibrillation and increased anticoagulant use compared with controls. Neither screening approach separately showed a statistically significant reduction in adverse outcomes, although combining trials produced a small reduction in negative events. This mixed pattern supports investigating possible overdiagnosis, but it does not prove that every additional diagnosis was unnecessary.
This abstract-based account comes from an explicitly exploratory, nonsystematic analysis. Overdiagnosis was inferred from diagnosis and outcome patterns, and the abstract does not define the pooled negative events or give overall follow-up durations.
Screening approaches differed
The screening approaches differed in detection results: continuous monitoring increased diagnoses, while intermittent screening’s increase was not statistically significant. Diagnosis counts, anticoagulant use and adverse events were analyzed as separate outcomes.
Detection and patient outcomes
Detecting more atrial fibrillation is a screening result; it does not itself show that people fare better. The pooled finding of fewer negative events should be read alongside the inconclusive results for each screening approach.
The original publication
Overdiagnosis in atrial fibrillation screening with wearables.
Haase CB, Jensen AE, Modin FA et al.
Scand J Prim Health Care · 2026
- PubMed ID
- 42033454
- Record checked
AI-assisted research and writing. This explains one selected publication; it is not a complete review of everything known. Our approach.
One more question, understood.
Keep track of the research you’ve explored.