Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Chris Mimnagh writes that AF screening has detected people with AF.
This is to be expected. Screening finds things. But this does not prove whether or not the screening results in interventions or actions capable of more benefit than harm, or merely larger lead times, or whether the opportunity cost is rational, or whether this is a cost effective intervention overall.
The involvement of industry and charities supported by industry in facilitating screening for AF while it is not recommended by the UK NSC should be a red flag.
Obviously the key word here is screening, population based, at scale.
The Innovation Agency Northwest Coast AHSN has promoted use of portable devices which enable a single lead each recording via smart phone.
The agency has been informed of numerous cases of AF detected in clinical practice, resulting in better risk management as a result of detection.
Obviously this is not the screening that the author suggests is premature, it is clinical practice enhanced by technology, it is the 21st century after all.
Competing interests:
I advise the Innovation Agency on technology in primary care
Re: Margaret McCartney: If screening is worth doing, it’s worth doing well
Chris Mimnagh writes that AF screening has detected people with AF.
This is to be expected. Screening finds things. But this does not prove whether or not the screening results in interventions or actions capable of more benefit than harm, or merely larger lead times, or whether the opportunity cost is rational, or whether this is a cost effective intervention overall.
The involvement of industry and charities supported by industry in facilitating screening for AF while it is not recommended by the UK NSC should be a red flag.
Competing interests: I wrote the article