ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2015
Direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: can data from randomized clinical trials be safely transferred to the general population? Yes.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The involvement of pharmacies in the screening of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation.Internal and emergency medicine · 2017Article
- Comparative effectiveness of rivaroxaban in the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2017Review
- Guidelines on the management of atrial fibrillation in the emergency department: a critical appraisal.Internal and emergency medicine · 2017Article
- Risk-Benefit Profile of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in Established Therapeutic Indications: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Observational Studies.Drug safety · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The current therapeutic options for patients at high thromboembolic risk include the vitamin K antagonists and the direct oral anticoagulants. These novel agents have been evaluated in more than 40,000 patients enrolled in four large randomized controlled trials for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation. When these results were pooled together, a greater efficacy profile, as well as a consistent reduction in life-threatening bleeding was shown in comparison to vitamin K antagonists. Randomized controlled trials offer the highest level of evidence on the efficacy and safety of an intervention; however, their results may not be directly applicable to the general population. The results of a number of post-marketing observational studies from the United States and Europe have been published. The results of these studies substantially confirm the findings of the randomized trials and show a favorable safety profile with the use of the direct oral anticoagulants even in unselected populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26153470What 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.