Trial reportDeutsches Arzteblatt international2014
Educating orally anticoagulated patients in drug safety: a cluster-randomized study in general practice.
Trial report in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality of Stroke Patient Information Applied in Randomized Controlled Trials-Literature Review.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of supplemental education in patients treated with oral anticoagulation.Blood advances · 2019Pooled it
- American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: optimal management of anticoagulation therapy.Blood advances · 2018Guideline
- Educational and behavioural interventions for anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Differences in the quality of oral anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists in German GP practices - results of the cluster-randomized PICANT trial (Primary Care Management for Optimized Antithrombotic Treatment).BMC health services research · 2019Trial
- Does a complex intervention increase patient knowledge about oral anticoagulation? - a cluster-randomised controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2017Trial
- Pharmacist-Facilitated Interactive E-Learning for Patients Newly Initiated on Warfarin: A Randomised Controlled Study.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Patient Knowledge about Oral Anticoagulation Therapy Assessed during an Intermediate Medication Review in Swiss Community Pharmacies.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Disease understanding in patients newly diagnosed with atrial fibrillation.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2018Article
- Development and validation of a questionnaire to self-assess patient knowledge of direct oral anticoagulants (KODOA-test).Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2018Article
- Modern education, modern media: patient empowerment in today's medicine.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014Article
- Article
- The Impact of a Pharmacist-led Warfarin Educational Video in a Saudi Setting.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOrally anticoagulated patients with insufficient knowledge about their treatment have a higher risk of complications. Standardized patient education could raise their level of knowledge and improve time spent within target INR range.
methodsThis cluster randomized trial included 319 anticoagulated patients drawn from 22 general medical practices. 185 patients received patient education, conducted by practice nurses, consisting of a video, a brochure, and a questionnaire; 134 control patients received only the brochure. The primary endpoint was knowledge about treatment six months after the patient education session. The secondary endpoints were time in the INR (international normalized ratio) target range and complications of anticoagulation.
resultsPatients in the intervention and control groups were of comparable mean age (73 vs. 72 years). They answered a comparable number of questions correctly before the intervention (6.8 ± 0.2 vs. 6.7 ± 0.2) but differed significantly on this measure at six months (9.9 ± 0.2 vs. 7.6 ± 0.2, mean difference 2.3 questions, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-3.1, p< 0.001). In the six months prior to the intervention, the INR was in the target range 65 ± 2% vs. 66 ± 3% of the time; in the six months afterward, 71 ± 1% vs. 64 ± 3% of the time (mean difference 7 percentage points, 95% CI -2 to -16 percentage points, p = 0.11). The complication rates were comparable in the two groups (12% vs. 16%, p = 0.30). Patients in the intervention group approved of patient education sessions to a greater extent than control patients (87% vs. 56%).
conclusionPatient education was found to be practical, to improve knowledge relating to patient safety in a durable manner, and to meet with the approval of the patients who received it. There was a statistically non-significant trend toward an improvement of the time spent in the INR target range. In view of the major knowledge deficits of orally anticoagulated patients, standardized patient education ought to be made a part of their routine care.
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.