Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26185477›Full record

ReviewJournal of blood medicine2015

Critical appraisal of dabigatran in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

Kelechi C Ogbonna, Dave L Dixon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of blood medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kelechi C OgbonnaDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Outcomes Science, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, VA, USA.
Dave L DixonDepartment of Pharmacotherapy and Outcomes Science, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Pharmacy, Richmond, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the safety and efficacy of dabigatran to warfarin for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a disease comprised of two conditions: deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. VTE is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide with an annual incidence estimated at 1-3 cases per 1,000 individuals. This incidence increases with age from 0.1 per 1,000 in adolescence to eight per 1,000 in those 80 years of age and older. As the proportion of patients 65 years of age and older expands, the number of patients presenting with VTE will also increase. Anticoagulation remains the cornerstone of VTE treatment. Traditionally, vitamin K antagonists have been used to minimize the risk of thrombus extension and for secondary prevention. Unpredictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, routine monitoring, drug-food and drug-drug interactions, and potentially severe adverse events have all been cited as barriers to optimal care. Dabigatran has been proposed as a suitable alternative to warfarin therapy in the treatment of VTE. Therefore, a critical appraisal of dabigatran's safety and efficacy is necessary to determine its role in therapy.

conclusionDabigatran remains an alternative to warfarin therapy for the treatment of VTE. However, dabigatran also has distinct disadvantages that warrant consideration. Clinicians must ensure that drug characteristics align with patient characteristics to optimize patient outcomes.

Indexed as

anticoagulantsdabigatran etexilate mesylatepulmonary embolismsvenous thromboembolismvenous thrombosiswarfarin sodium

Identifiers

PMID26185477
PMCPMC4501287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.