Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28058458›Full record

ReviewDer Internist2017

[Vitamin K antagonists : Is their prescription really "medical malpractice" today?]

E Rafflenbeul, J Müller-Ehmsen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 47% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E Rafflenbeul3. Medizinische Abteilung (Kardiologie, Pneumologie und Internistische Intensivmedizin), Asklepios Klinik Altona, Paul-Ehrlich-Str. 1, 22763, Hamburg, Deutschland. e.rafflenbeul@asklepios.com.
J Müller-Ehmsen3. Medizinische Abteilung (Kardiologie, Pneumologie und Internistische Intensivmedizin), Asklepios Klinik Altona, Paul-Ehrlich-Str. 1, 22763, Hamburg, Deutschland. j.mueller-ehmsen@asklepios.com.
Asklepios Klinik Altona · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdministration, OralAnticoagulantsCardiologyEuropeEvidence-Based MedicineHemorrhageHumansThromboembolismTreatment OutcomeVitamin KAnticoagulantsVitamin KAtrial fibrillationHeart valves, replacementNon vitamin-K dependent oral anticoagulant (NOAC)Renal insufficiencyVenous thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID28058458
OpenAlexW2570395014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.