SynthesisMayo Clinic proceedings2011
Association between CHADS₂risk factors and anticoagulation-related bleeding: a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dabigatran Levels in Elderly Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: First Post-Marketing Experiences.Drugs & aging · 2018Article
- How Well Do Stroke Risk Scores Predict Hemorrhage in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation?The American journal of cardiology · 2016Article
- Long-term anticoagulation in the extreme elderly with the newer antithrombotics: safe or sorry?Korean circulation journal · 2013Article
- Phenotyping bleeding.Current opinion in hematology · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the strength of evidence supporting an accentuated bleeding risk when patients with CHADS(2) risk factors (chronic heart failure, hypertension, advanced age, diabetes, and prior stroke/transient ischemic attack) receive warfarin.
methodsA systematic literature search of MEDLINE (January 1, 1950, through December 22, 2009) and Cochrane CENTRAL (through December 22, 2009) was conducted to identify studies that reported multivariate results on the association between CHADS(2) covariates and risk of bleeding in patients receiving warfarin. Each covariate was evaluated for its association with a specific type of bleeding. Individual evaluations were rated as good, fair, or poor using methods consistent with those recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The strength of the associations between each CHADS(2) covariate and a specific type of bleeding was determined using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria as insufficient, very low, low, moderate, or high for the entire body of evidence.
resultsForty-one studies were identified, reporting 127 multivariate evaluations of the association between a CHADS(2) covariate and bleeding risk. No CHADS(2) covariate had a high strength of evidence for association with any bleeding type. For the vast majority of evaluations, the strength of evidence between covariates and bleeding was low. Advanced age was the only covariate that had a moderate strength of evidence for association; this was the strongest independent positive predictor for major bleeding. Similar findings were observed regardless of whether all included studies, or only those evaluating patients with atrial fibrillation, were assessed.
conclusionThe associations between CHADS(2) covariates and increased bleeding risk were weak, with the exception of age. Given the known association of the CHADS(2) score and stroke risk, the decision to prescribe warfarin should be driven more by patients' risk of stroke than by the risk of bleeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.