ArticlePloS one2015
Net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulants: a multiple criteria decision analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Meta-regression of randomized control trials with antithrombotics: weak correlation between net clinical benefit and all cause-mortality.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019Pooled it
- Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process in healthcare research: A systematic literature review and evaluation of reporting.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Pooled it
- Quantitative benefit-risk analysis for prophylactic vaccines in the context of FDAs benefit-risk framework.NPJ vaccines · 2026Review
- Benefit-risk assessment of the use of toxic botanical drugs in superiority field: a case study onFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- The application of multi-criteria decision analysis in evaluating the value of drug-oriented intervention: a literature review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Assessment and prioritization of the WHO "best buys" and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases in Iran.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Structured benefit-risk evaluation for medicinal products: review of quantitative benefit-risk assessment findings in the literature.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2020Review
- Screening of groundwater remedial alternatives for brownfield sites: a comprehensive method integrated MCDA with numerical simulation.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018Article
- Benefit, risk and cost of new oral anticoagulants and warfarin in atrial fibrillation; A multicriteria decision analysis.PloS one · 2018Article
- Decision-Making in Clinical Practice: Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients with Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation and a Single Additional Stroke Risk Factor.Advances in therapy · 2017Review
- Why switch from warfarin to NOACs?Internal and emergency medicine · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study quantitatively evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apizaban) and warfarin for treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. We also compared these agents under different scenarios, including population with high risk of stroke and for primary vs. secondary stroke prevention.
methodsWe used multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to assess the benefit-risk of these medications. Our MCDA models contained criteria for benefits (prevention of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism) and risks (intracranial and extracranial bleeding). We calculated a performance score for each drug accounting for benefits and risks in comparison to treatment alternatives.
resultsOverall, new agents had higher performance scores than warfarin; in order of performance scores: dabigatran 150 mg (0.529), rivaroxaban (0.462), apixaban (0.426), and warfarin (0.191). For patients at a higher risk of stroke (CHADS2 score≥3), apixaban had the highest performance score (0.686); performance scores for other drugs were 0.462 for dabigatran 150 mg, 0.392 for dabigatran 110 mg, 0.271 for rivaroxaban, and 0.116 for warfarin. Dabigatran 150 mg had the highest performance score for primary stroke prevention, while dabigatran 110 mg had the highest performance score for secondary prevention.
conclusionsOur results suggest that new oral anticoagulants might be preferred over warfarin. Selecting appropriate medicines according to the patient's condition based on information from an integrated benefit-risk assessment of treatment options is crucial to achieve optimal clinical outcomes.
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.