ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2013
Characterisation of non-warfarin-associated bleeding events reported to the Norwegian spontaneous reporting system.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Assessment of CVD Risk Factors in Secondary Prevention after Ischemic Stroke Using the ICF.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Risk Factors for the Recurrence of CVD Incidents in Post-Stroke Patients over a 5-Year Follow-Up Period Based on the ICF Classification.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The ICF Classification System to Assess Risk Factors for CVD in Secondary Prevention after Ischemic Stroke and Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Pulmonary Hemorrhage Following Percutaneous Computed Tomography-Guided Lung Biopsy: Retrospective Review of Risk Factors, Including Aspirin Usage.Current problems in diagnostic radiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to analyse non-warfarin-associated bleeding adverse drug events reported to the Norwegian spontaneous reporting system, with characterisation of the bleeding locations, outcome and drug interactions. In addition, concordance in assessments between reporters and evaluators, trend shifts in reporting, and detection of potentially new adverse drug interaction signals were studied.
methodsData on bleeding events reported between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2005 were retrieved from the Norwegian spontaneous reporting system database.
resultsOf 327 case reports of non-warfarin-associated bleeding events, 270 reports (82.6 %) were characterised as serious and 69 (21.1 %) had a fatal outcome. One hundred and eighty-seven bleeds (57.5 %) were gastrointestinal, 57 (17.4 %) were cerebral, and 81 (24.8 %) were from other bleeding sites. The bleeding sites differed with respect to the patient's age, drug use, diagnoses and outcomes. Of drugs associated with bleeding, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)/COX-2 inhibitors (145 reports) and acetylsalicylic acid (128 reports) were most frequently used. Only fibrinolytics were associated with increased mortality. There was a 67.4 % correlation between reporters and evaluators in assessment of drugs associated with bleeding (P < 0.001), with considerable variation in concordance between drug groups.
conclusionNon-warfarin-associated bleeding events are associated with substantial mortality. Old age, cerebral bleeds, number of drugs used, and use of fibrinolytics are all independently associated with increased mortality. The recognition of the bleeding risk of commonly used drugs such as acetylsalicylic acid and heparins may be insufficient among prescribers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23423243What 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.