ArticleJournal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association2015
Net Clinical Benefits of Guidelines and Decision Tool Recommendations for Oral Anticoagulant Use among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association, 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.
- Adherence to Extended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Outcomes After Complex Gastrointestinal Oncologic Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Feasibility and usability of a mobile health tool on anticoagulation management for patients with atrial fibrillation: a pilot study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Reducing age bias in decision analyses of anticoagulation for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation - A microsimulation study.PloS one · 2018Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 2012 American College of Chest Physicians' Evidence-Based Clinical Practice (CHEST), the 2012 European Society of Cardiology, and the 2014 American Heart Association guidelines and published decision tools by LaHaye and Casciano offer oral anticoagulant (OAC) recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of our study was to compare the net clinical benefit (NCB) of OAC prescribing that was concordant with these decision aids.
methodsA cohort study of the 2001-2013 LifeLink claims data was used. NCB in concordance with each decision aid was defined as adverse events (thromboembolic and major bleed events) prevented per 10,000 person-years. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the relative risk of AF adverse events associated in concordance with each decision aid adjusted for potential confounders.
findingsThe study included 15,129 patients with AF, contributing 33,512 person-years. The NCB of the CHEST guidelines was the highest (NCB = 30.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 28.66, 31.49) and the European Society of Cardiology guidelines the lowest (NCB = 7.38; 95% CI = 5.97, 8.80). Significant unadjusted decreases in the risk of AF adverse events associated with concordant OAC use/nonuse were found for the CHEST guidelines (hazard ratio [HR] = .825; 95% CI = .695, .979), Casciano tool (HR = .838; 95% CI = .706, .995), and LaHaye tool (HR = .841; 95% CI = .709, .999); however, none were significant after multivariate adjustment.
conclusionConcordant OAC use with any of the decision aids except for the aggressive LaHaye tool led to a positive NCB. The decision aids based on the CHA2DS2-VASc algorithm did not consistently improve the NCB compared to CHADS2-based aids. Recommending OAC use when CHA2DS2-VASc score = 1 resulted in a lower NCB when all other factors guiding recommendations were held constant.
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.