Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27696300›Full record

ReviewDrug safety2016

Risk-Benefit Profile of Direct-Acting Oral Anticoagulants in Established Therapeutic Indications: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Observational Studies.

Emanuel Raschi, Matteo Bianchin, Walter Ageno, Roberto De Ponti, Fabrizio De Ponti

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Drug safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Emanuel RaschiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Irnerio, 48, I-40126, Bologna, Italy.
Matteo BianchinDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Irnerio, 48, I-40126, Bologna, Italy.
Walter AgenoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Roberto De PontiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Fabrizio De PontiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Irnerio, 48, I-40126, Bologna, Italy. fabrizio.deponti@unibo.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since 2008, the direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have expanded the therapeutic options of cardiovascular diseases with recognized clinical and epidemiological impact, such as non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE), and also in the preventive setting of orthopedic surgical patients. The large body of evidence, not only from pivotal clinical trials but also from 'real-world' postmarketing observational findings (e.g. analytical epidemiological studies and registry data) gathered to date allow for a first attempt at verifying a posteriori whether or not the pharmacological advantages of the DOACs actually translate into therapeutic innovation, with relevant implications for clinicians, regulators and patients. This review aims to synthesize the risk-benefit profile of DOACs in the aforementioned consolidated indications through an 'evidence summary' approach gathering the existent evidence-based data, particularly systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, as well as observational studies, comparing DOACs with vitamin K antagonists. Clinical evidence will be discussed and compared with major international guidelines to identify whether an update is needed. Controversial clinically relevant safety issues will be also examined in order to highlight current challenges and unsettled questions (e.g. actual bleeding risk in susceptible populations). It is anticipated that the large number of publications on NVAF or VTE (44 systematic reviews with meta-analyses and 12 observational studies retained in our analysis) suggests the potential existence of overlapping studies and calls for common criteria to qualitatively and quantitatively assess discordances, thus guiding future research.

Indexed as

Administration, OralAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationHumansObservational Studies as TopicRisk AssessmentVenous ThromboembolismAnticoagulants

Identifiers

PMID27696300
PMCPMC5107188

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.