ArticleDer Internist2014
[New oral anticoagulants: who really needs them?].
Article in Der Internist, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Oral anticoagulation using coumarins - an update].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2018Review
- Acquired hemophilia with inhibitors presenting as an emergency: misinterpretation of clotting results during direct oral anticoagulation.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are alternative drugs to classical vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. They have been shown in randomized trials to be superior to warfarin in reducing clinical endpoints, although at rather small effect sizes. However, in study centers with good anticoagulation management their superiority was barely significant. The effectiveness of anticoagulation therapy is crucially dependent on individual drug adherence. NOAC potentially decrease adherence due to several reasons, among them the twice-daily dosing requirement in some of them and the nonnecessity for anticoagulation monitoring. Anticoagulation monitoring is assumed to increase adherence per se. VKA are potentially better suitable to compensate for low adherence due to their long half-lives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24399478What 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.