ReviewDer Internist2017
[Vitamin K antagonists : Is their prescription really "medical malpractice" today?]
Review in Der Internist, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolisms are frequent cardiovascular diseases. Until a few years ago only vitamin K antagonists (VKA) were available for oral anticoagulation as primary and secondary prevention of thrombembolic events. Currently, the non-vitamin K dependent new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban are approved for use. The approval studies, meta-analyses and data from registries provide evidence for the superiority of NOAC vs. VKA with respect to reduction of thrombembolisms and reduced bleeding complications; therefore, in the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines the use of NOAC is recommended as first line therapy for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (recommendation grade I/evidence level A). In patients with mechanical heart valve replacement and severe renal dysfunction VKA are still clearly indicated. This also holds true for prophylaxis of secondary thromboembolic events in tumor patients. Thus, even today therapy with VKA must not be regarded as medical malpractice, especially when a good adjustment of the international normalized ratio can be achieved; however, for many patients NOAC represent a very good alternative and lead to at least equal results with less effort for the prescribing physician and the patient.
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.