ReviewClinical cardiology2016
New Oral Anticoagulants in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structure-based design and synthesis of novel FXIa inhibitors targeting the S2' subsite for enhanced antithrombotic efficacy.Molecular diversity · 2025Article
- Factor Xa inhibitors vs. warfarin in patients with Hughes syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- Clinical Characteristics And Health Care Resources In Patients Treated With Oral Anticoagulants: Evidences From Italian Administrative Databases.Vascular health and risk management · 2019Article
- Navigating the choice of oral anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation in the NOAC era.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2017Review
- Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) and Their Reversal.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2017Review
- Impact of Pharmacists' audit on improving the quality of prescription of dabigatran etexilate methanesulfonate: a retrospective study.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2017Article
- New Oral Anticoagulants in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.Clinical cardiology · 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
The choice of an oral anticoagulant (OAC) for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is a major and complex clinical decision taking into account the individual risk-benefit ratio and bearing in mind the chronicity of therapy. This review focuses on the safety and efficacy of new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared with conventional vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in patients with NVAF. Current data suggest that NOACs are at least as effective and safe as VKAs for most NVAF subjects. The NOACs do not mandate dietary restrictions and regular pharmacodynamic monitoring, and they seem to have lesser incidence of intracranial or fatal bleeding when compared with VKAs. However, both dabigatran 150 twice daily and rivaroxaban have a slightly higher incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding when compared with VKAs. The article will delineate the current knowledge as well as scientific gaps related to the choice and dosage of anticoagulation regimens for various NVAF subsets and will address certain common clinical scenarios requiring special considerations. The article also addresses the shortcomings of NOACs: lack of therapeutic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic targets, absence of tools to assess compliance and efficacy, rigid and limited dosage options, and absence of effective and inexpensive reversal agents.
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.