SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2017
Bleeding events associated with a low dose (110 mg) versus a high dose (150 mg) of dabigatran in patients treated for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of anticoagulants in elderly atrial fibrillation patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants with proton pump inhibitor cotherapy ameliorated the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Assessment of the efficiency and safety of anti-coagulation therapy in patients with liver cirrhosis and atrial fibrillation.Clinical and experimental hepatology · 2023Article
- Antithrombotic therapy in coronary artery disease patients with atrial fibrillation.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe newer oral anticoagulant dabigatran is considered to be more beneficial in patients with non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation (AF) when compared to warfarin. However, because bleeding events which are associated with a low dose (110 mg) versus a high dose (150 mg) of dabigatran have seldom been compared, we aimed to systematically solve this important issue through this meta-analysis.
methodsEnglish publications comparing 110 mg with 150 mg dabigatran in patients who were treated for AF were electronically searched through medical databases. Bleeding outcomes were the major clinical endpoints to be assessed. Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for each subgroup were calculated and the main analysis was carried out by the latest version of the RevMan 5.3 software.
resultsTwenty-nine thousand two hundred and sixty-four (29,264) patients were included in this meta-analysis. Fifteen thousand eight hundred and forty-eight (15,848) patients were treated with 110 mg dabigatran whereas 13,416 patients were treated with 150 mg dabigatran. 110 mg dabigatran was associated with a significantly lower rate of minor bleeding (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10-1.27; P < 0.00001). A similar rate of fatal and major bleeding was observed with both dosages (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.69-1.82; P = 0.65) and (OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.86-1.37; P = 0.49) respectively. However, ischemic stroke insignificantly favored a higher dose of dabigatran, (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.51-1.16; P = 0.21). In addition, this analysis showed mortality to significantly favor 150 mg of dabigatran (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.34-0.50; P < 0.00001).
conclusionNo significant differences in major and fatal bleedings were observed with 110 mg versus 150 mg dabigatran. However, 110 mg dabigatran was associated with a significantly lower risk of minor bleeding. These results should further be confirmed in future trials.
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.