ReviewClinical cardiology2013
Oral anticoagulants to reduce the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation: how should a clinician choose?
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient preferences regarding atrial fibrillation stroke prophylaxis in patients at potential risk of atrial fibrillation.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF), a common arrhythmia that occurs with increasing frequency in the aging population, is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. To ensure that patients receive adequate anticoagulant prophylaxis, clinical guidelines for anticoagulation advocate use of validated scoring systems to stratify patients by cardiovascular risk and predict the individual patient's risk of adverse effects of therapy. Recently approved oral anticoagulants-a direct thrombin inhibitor and the factor Xa inhibitors-may offer advantages over the 50-year standard, warfarin, for efficacy, safety, and ease of administration. Clinical trial experience with the newly approved agents and others, yet to be approved, will define their relative value in reducing the risk of thromboembolism associated with AF. This article discusses issues that may help clinicians choose among these newer agents and individualize treatment appropriately.
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.