Trial reportJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2015
Patient-reported health preferences of anticoagulant-related outcomes.
Trial report in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of patient-reported outcomes associated with the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Patient Preferences for Oral Anticoagulation Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Literature Review.The patient · 2017Pooled it
- Assessment and mitigation of bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism: A Position Paper from the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Association for Acute CardioVascular Care and the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022Article
- Anticoagulation in Heart Failure: a Review.Journal of atrial fibrillationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Strokes can have a catastrophic impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In addition to warfarin, two novel oral anticoagulants, i.e., dabigatran and rivaroxaban, have been approved to prevent strokes. This study aimed to use direct measures to elicit patient-reported utilities (i.e., preferences) for anticoagulant-related outcomes. A cross-sectional survey was administered to 100 patients taking warfarin in an anticoagulation clinic. Utilities for six long-term and four short-term anticoagulant-related health states were elicited by the visual analogue scale (VAS) and standard gamble (SG) methods. Health states with the highest SG-derived mean utility values were "well on rivaroxaban" (mean ± SD = 0.90 ± 0.15), "well on warfarin" (0.86 ± 0.17), and "well on dabigatran" (0.83 ± 0.18). Approximately half of the patients considered major ischemic stroke (-1.57 ± 6.77) and intracranial hemorrhage (-1.99 ± 6.98) to be worse than death. The percentages of patients who considered a particular health state worse than death ranged from 0 to 55 % among various health states assessed. The VAS had similar findings. Good logical consistency was observed in both VAS- and SG-derived utility values. Ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage had a significant impact on patients' HRQoL. Greater variation in patients' preferences was observed for more severely impaired health states, indicating the need for individualized medical decision-making. In this study, both long-term and short-term health states were included in the utility assessment. The findings of this study can be used in cost-utility analysis of future anticoagulation therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25875937What 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.